Quantcast
Channel: Cult films and the people who make them
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live

Twisted Sisters

$
0
0
Director: Wolfgang Büld
Writer: Wolfgang Büld
Producers: Wolfgang Büld, Nick P Coe
Cast: Fiona Horsey, Paul Conway, Eden Ford
Country: UK/Germany
Year of release: 2006
Reviewed from: screener DVD
Official website: twistedsisters.de

Wolfgang Büld has done it again. The director of Penetration Angst and Lovesick: Sick Love (and, of course, Punk in London and all that other stuff) returns with another deliciously black comedy-horror filled with everything we expect from him: perversion, violence, sleaze, emasculation and a bloke shagging the wrong twin.

Paul Conway and Fiona Horsey - by now a sort of Büld repertory company - return once more along with other cast and crew members, including cinematographer Uwe Bohrer (Nekromantik). Paul is okay as a sleazy cop but never seems to quite get his teeth into the role; only right at the very end does ‘DI Caffrey’ come to life with typical Büld-ian perversity. Until then, he seems just slightly out of synch, which I think is more a casting problem than an acting one and is not helped by a moustache which suits neither the actor nor the character. More than making up for this, however, is an absolutely stunning performance by Fiona, or rather two performances as she plays twins: Norah and Jennifer.

Jennifer is a happy, successful young woman, working in a big PR agency and happily settled with Alan (Andrew Southern), a junior doctor whose father is a leading lawyer. The problem is: someone who looks exactly like Jennifer is seducing men and savagely killing them. DI Caffrey is assigned to the case along with his partner, the cheerfully non-PC DS Woodgate (a role written specially for Eden Ford, who was the Russian gangster in Lovesick: Sick Love and has an uncredited cameo in Evil Aliens). Is Jennifer the killer - after all, she has no alibi to rescue her - or does she have a double?

Well, of course the film is called Twisted Sisters so it comes as no great surprise that her parents reveal the existence of a previously unknown twin, Norah, whose twisted background is uncovered by Caffrey. (Jennifer’s mother is Joan Blackham, who was in Bridget Jones’s Diary and Chocky’s Challenge but will always be remembered by some of us as the hilariously staid Miss Erith in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin.) Büld skilfully keeps us uncertain about what is or isn’t true throughout the first act, despite the movie’s title. He then sets up a cat and mouse situation as Norah stays one jump ahead of the cops, and in the final act he unleashes real terror as the sisters finally meet.

The idea of two people looking the same is simple enough but Twisted Sisters uses it brilliantly and the extensive use of mirrors in many shots and scenes reinforces the duality of the lead roles. Most of the time, we know which sister we’re looking at but we always have to think about which sister the other characters think is with them.

Having said that real terror is unleashed in the final act, I should qualify that by pointing out that two extremely grisly murders top and tail the film’s first third. We start with a castration that will have every man in the audience crossing his legs and covering his eyes. Then, at around the 36-minute mark, comes one of the most jaw-dropping on-screen deaths that I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a few). I don’t want to give away any details: I will just report that my attempts to scream “No-o-o-o!” at the TV screen were hampered by the way that my lower jaw seemed to have stuck to my chest. The scene is as outlandish in its conception as it is masterful in its execution and is absolutely guaranteed to get audiences talking.

The prosthetic effects on display after each death are excellent but what impresses most on this film is the editing. Once the sisters meet, it is almost impossible to believe that we are watching only one actress. Scenes between the two are superbly achieved using nothing except a body double, precise storyboarding and an editor who should win some sort of award.

If there is a downside to the film it’s the locations. Apparently set in Northern Europe, the movie was filmed in Hamburg and what appears to be Denmark although the cast speak English and some forensic experts examining a body have 'Police' written on their overalls. Most of the time incriminating clues to the location, such as car number plates, are concealed but that makes those German/Danish notices and signs which do slip through all the more obvious. None of this bothers me, but it might puzzle - and hence irritate - other, less perspicacious reviewers. Many of the cast are Danish or German and a couple of the speaking roles are dubbed. Büld himself appears briefly as a doctor.

But this is Horsey’s film through and through, a double-barrelled tour de force which marks her as one of the best ‘unknown’ film actresses in the UK. That her work in Wolfgang’s films has not led to her being snapped up for bigger-budgeted projects is one of the great mysteries of modern cinema. It’s certainly not because of any shyness about doing nude scenes!

Twisted Sisters, which had the working title Final Cut, carries a 2005 copyright date and has already been released in Germany. Whether it will make it past the UK censor intact remains to be seen, not least because there is a violent ‘blood on breasts’ scene about five minutes in. For anyone who enjoyed Penetration Angst and Lovesick: Sick Love, this is another disturbingly entertaining slice of Anglo-German darkness.

MJS rating: A

The Tripper

$
0
0
Director: David Arquette
Writer: David Arquette, Joe Harris
Producer: David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Evan Astrowsky, Neil Machlis, Navin Narang
Cast: Thomas Jane, Paul Reubens, David Arquette
Country: US
Year of release: 2007
Reviewed from: UK preview screening

This is the film where a psycho in a Ronald Reagan mask hacks up hippies in the woods - and to be honest, there’s not much more you need to know. It’s well-made, just the right length (which is rare these days) and enormous fun, a reminder that horror movies can be entertaining in an age when so many seem to dwell solely on sadism. This is a film about what someone does and why, not one that dwells on the clinical details of how he does it.

A prologue set in 1967 shows us a young boy whose mother is sick and whose father has the job of interceding between loggers and a group of literally tree-hugging hippies. When things get rough and the cops arrest his father, the boy - whom we first saw watching California Governor Reagan on TV - takes things into his own hands. It’s very good of the film to let us know right from the start who our masked maniac is, long before he even enters the film.

In the present day, a van with three hippie couples inside is heading for a free music festival in the middle of a forest. This sextet are utterly anachronistic and it’s only the presence of a mobile phone that clues us in to the fact that we’ve jumped forward four decades. Only Samantha (Jaime King: Sin City, The Spirit) isn’t stoned; she has stayed clean ever since she took acid and got beaten up for it by her boyfriend, a straight-laced jock named Jimmy (Balthazar Getty: Judge Dredd). Her current beau is Ivan (Lukas Haas: Long Time Dead) and the others in the van are Joey (Kevin Smith regular Jason ‘Jay’ Mewes, whose non-Smith genre credits include Scream 3, Feast and a vampire comedy called Netherbeast Incorporated), Jade (Paz de la Huerte), Jack (Stephen Heath) and Linda (Manchester-born Marsha Thomason who was also in Long Time Dead as well as The Haunted Mansion, Black Knight and Prime Suspect 5!). They are all given some degree of character but it probably says something that I had to plough through no fewer than 18 on-line reviews before I found one which actually identified all six hippies by name and the actors who played them.

Director/writer/producer David Arquette plays one of three rednecks who lob a bottle at Ivan’s head when the hippies stop to take a leak and who then take a beating from Samantha when the two groups meet up again at a gas station. But the real star of the film is Thomas Jane (who also gets an executive producer credit as the film was partially produced by his company Raw) as the local Sheriff, Buzz Hall. As well as his signature role in The Punisher, sci-fi fan Jane’s other genre work includes Simon Hunter’s Mutant Chronicles, Albert Pyun’s Nemesis, Deep Blue Sea, The Crow: City of Angels and a brace of Stephen King adaptation’s: Dreamcatcher and The Mist. Arquette’s brother Richmond plays a Deputy, as he subsequently did in the remake of Halloween.

Hall’s big problem is policing the ‘Peace and Love Music Festival’, being organised in the middle of the woods by slimeball promoter Frank Baker (Paul Reubens hamming it up deliciously; he was in the original film of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - as was Jane - and also provided the voice of Lock, one of the three evil kids in The Nightmare Before Christmas). The local Mayor (Rick Overton: Eight Legged Freaks, The High Crusade, Groundhog Day) doesn’t approve of all the nudity, drugs and loud music but he does approve of the income and temporary jobs which the festival brings to his small town.

Disappearing hippies is not something that bothers Sheriff Hall - they wander off stoned and they’ll turn up when their heads clear - but real trouble arises when they start turning up dead. Initial suspicion points to a local crazy guy who lays animal traps in the woods but we all find out fairly soon that it’s a psycho with a Ronald Reagan mask and a double-headed axe. Considering that this is the central premise of the film and the focus of its poster/sleeve, there seems little point in hiding the actual killer from us for so long. The first few kills are shot in such a way as to give us no clear view of the guy, but we know he’s a loon in a suit and tie with a Reagan mask on his face. We also know who is behind the mask, unless we’ve come in late or we’re as out of it as the hippies on screen.

As the deaths mount, Hall tries to close down the festival, meeting the disapproval of not just hundreds of stoners but also Baker and the Mayor. Meanwhile Samantha - the only non-stoned attendee at the festival - has some idea of what is going on but is also worried that her violent ex-boyfriend Jimmy is around somewhere. And the three rednecks are togged up in camo gear, hunting hippies with paintball guns for fun.

In among all this, the actual deaths are good, old-fashioned, gory violence, not lingering and not brutally sadistic. Well, innocent people do get chopped up with an axe, but not in a way that gives pleasure to the person doing the chopper and certainly not in a way that satisfies the prurient members of the audience. You know, it’s very hard justifying a gory film as ‘fun’ while maintaining the moral high ground over unnecessarily sadistic gory films.

What makes this movie different from your bog-standard slasher is, of course, the political subtext. But what is bizarre is: there isn’t one. You can ‘read’ this from a right-wing perspective as the ersatz Reagan metes out well-deserved punishment to the pot-smoking, lazy peace-and-love-niks, cheering every axe-stroke. Or you can ‘read’ this from a left-wing perspective (what the inhabitants of the former colony call ‘liberal’) as the evil Reagan-figure strikes out with mindless violence against kids who just want to dance and make love, not war. In actual fact the film is equally critical of both viewpoints and Arquette has repeatedly emphasised that his intention was to make a fun horror movie of the sort that he likes to watch and that there is no political statement to be made here.

And yet it’s wrapped up in what seems to be a whole bunch of conflicting political statements. Arquette’s wife Courtney Cox (Friends, Scream 1-3) has a hilarious cameo near the end which is definitely a savage satirical attack on the peace and love crowd (the Inaccurate Movie Database credits Cox as ‘Cynthia’ but her unnamed character is listed as ‘dog hippie girl’ on screen). On the other hand, the end credits play under an unidentified diatribe of some radio or TV commentator haranguing Reagan, the Republicans and the entire US military-industrial complex. Maybe Arquette decided that if he threw enough differing political viewpoints into the fire they would cancel each other out. And it must be said that, from a commercial point of view, this is a canny move because it means that both right-wingers and liberals can watch the film: the one’s box office dollars are as good as the other’s.

The only truly sympathetic character, ironically, is Sheriff Buzz Hall, trying to keep order and stop the murders in the midst of all this. Thomas Jane gives a great performance and is definitely the film’s central character, if not its actual hero (there isn’t really one).

Hugely enjoyable as it is, there are two curious things about The Tripper that spoil the film slightly (well, three if you include the complete non-mystery about who is doing the killing and why). Although the central premise is a killer in a Reagan mask and we see a full-head Reagan mask hanging on a wall at one point and when the killer is finally stopped a full-head Reagan mask is removed from him (a scene which has no visual impact because we have never seen this character before, at least not as an adult) - nevertheless the killer is very clearly not wearing a Reagan mask. When we get to see him with any degree of clarity, it is very obvious that the actor is wearing prosthetic make-up. (The actor in question is actually make-up artist Chris Nelson although I’m not sure whether he had a hand in designing/creating the prosthetics or just wore them.) This is even more obvious when he speaks: this is make-up, not a rubber mask. It just destroys the illusion and seems completely pointless, especially as (and here comes my second point)...

The killer looks nothing like Ronald Reagan. Sorry, but it’s true. If we didn’t know in advance from the publicity that the guy is supposed to ‘be’ Ronnie Reagan, there would be no way to tell. The prosthetics and the hair dye just make him look like a red-faced old guy with dyed hair, not the 40th President of the United States. The face is not just wrong, it’s completely the wrong shape and frankly it looks no more like Reagan than your face or mine. Nor does it help that the actor - and hence the character - is muscular, unlike Reagan’s tall, skinny physique.

There’s the occasional shout of “Nancy!” (which we later discover is the name of a dog) but other than that, there is nothing Reagan-esque about this killer. All the possibilities to play with the concept, the potential one-liners and sight gags, have been ignored in favour of a single visual image - which, as stated above, only works because we’re told in advance who it is.

This is a shame although it doesn’t stop The Tripper from being a tremendously enjoyable, light-hearted horror movie with smart direction, a competent script and some super performances, especially from Jane and Reubens. It also contains, almost incidentally, a very unusual scene. After the festival is closed down, the out-of-their-gourds hippies head off into the woods to continue dancing anyway and the masked maniac wades into them, laying about him wildly with his axe. Most slasher films involve attacks on single people or sometimes couples. I’m no expert on the subgenre but it strikes me as very unusual to have a scene where the killer simply wades into a large group of victims, chopping away at them. Normally, any such group would either flee en masse, quickly reducing the potential victims to individuals, or even fight back. But the dancing hippies are so complete zonked that neither fight nor flight is an option. This is only a brief scene but, to be honest, it is more original and more interesting than giving the killer a Presidential mask.

Other cast members include Redmond Gleeson (Starflight One!), Richard Gross (Children of the Corn IV), Josh Hammond (sci-fi shark thriller Blue Demon, Timecop 2 - no, I didn’t know either... - Jeepers Creepers II and three David DeCoteau movies: The Brotherhood, Alien Arsenal and Ring of Darkness), Brad Hunt (Damned, The Plague), Waylon Payne (who played Jerry Lee Lewis in Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line) and Richard Reicheg (Leprechaun 3). Members of one of my favourite bands, Fishbone, perform on stage although curiously the song credits at the end of the film identify them as individual performers, not as ‘Fishbone’ - although Fishbone are credited with ‘additional music’. Something contractual going on there, methinks.

Evan Astrowsky (Cabin Fever, Minotaur) and Neil Machlis (The Ring Two, Bedazzled, Wolf) produced alongside Arquette and Cox; thirty years ago Machlis was production manager on The Stepford Wives and Empire of the Ants! Arquette’s co-writer Joe Harris worked on Darkness Falls (and the short that inspired it, Tooth Fairy). He also wrote and directed a short called Witchwise that looks intriguing and three episodes of an animated series about Vlad Tepes as a young man, called Bad Vlad!

Bobby Bukowski (Boogeyman) handled cinematography while editor Glenn Garland (Dracula Rising, Bats, Retroactive, The Devil’s Rejects, Halloween remake and the Roger CormanFantastic Four) stoked up the Avid. KNB handled the effects, which are largely limited to some gory axe wounds.

All credit to David Arquette for putting together a film that tries to do little but entertain and manages it admirably. But I’m still trying to work out whether wrapping it in apparently political ideas which aren’t actually there was a lucky mistake or a stroke of marketing genius.

(Incidentally the title not only refers to the tripping hippies but also riffs on Reagan’s nickname ‘the Gipper’. Not that I have ever heard anyone call him ‘the Gipper’ but this is what it says. All I ever heard people call him was ‘that crap old actor’ or ‘that dangerous, dribbling idiot who will probably kill us all’.)

MJS rating: B+

interview: Terry Pratchett

$
0
0
In the very, very early days of SFX, it was obvious that we needed to run a big interview with Terry Pratchett. Partly because he was the biggest-selling, most iconic name in not just genre fiction but British fiction generally; partly because I already knew Terry well through my involvement with the fan group Octarine, and it didn't hurt that he lived just up the road from Bath. Terry came to the SFX offices on 30th October 1995 and we had a long chat about Discworld, the universe and everything, starting with the latest novel which was Maskerade. This interview was published in issue 7, the one with the Pierce Brosnan cover. Nineteen years later, as a Christmas treat (and to celebrate Dirk Maggs' Radio 4 version of Good Omens), here is the full transcript including a bunch of stuff that never appeared in print.

How familiar are you with the other versions of Phantom of the Opera?
“Very, I would say. I read the book, I saw the first movie, I've been to the musical, I've seen some of the other movies, including some of the weird things like Phantom of the Paradise. Actually, there's other Phantom of the Opera books. The thing's effectively become public domain. I was actually quite impressed that Lloyd Webber's musical has some vague relationship to the original book. It was based on the original book rather than the movie, which rather surprised me.”

How familiar are you expecting the readers to be with the original story?
“Oh come on. I thought that by and large, everybody vaguely knows about Phantom of  the Opera. It's sort of public domain brain-fodder. This guy, in a mask, running round in an opera house, killing people. They might know more than that. The Phantom is now a stock horror player. You simply cannot open a book about the history of horror film without seeing that shot from the original film of the Phantom as the skeleton, the Masque of the Red Death. That is one of the classic images. Beyond that, I don't think it matters. I haven't used the Phantom of the Opera plot, I've used a plot which would have been the Phantom of the Opera plot had it gone the other way, had Granny Weatherwax not started to interfere, had the two girls not swapped rooms, and things like that.”

It came across to me as a very theatrical book. Was that because it was a theatrical story, or knowing that it was going to be adapted for the stage?
“Oh no! with no offence to Stephen [Briggs]'s upcoming production, I didn't think: 'Gosh! There's going to be an amateur production of this!' I actually wanted it to be claustrophobic. I wanted to set it as much as possible in the one building. Because I have gone backstage at opera houses, and I talked to people, and the whole thing has a very enclosed, hot-house atmosphere. Everyone's on edge all the time. Opera consists of 150 people almost going mad. Of course, they shouldn't go mad, but in order to get that whole thing done a lot of people have to be very, very on edge, that's what I mean.”

Did you a develop an interest in opera, then think it would make a good book?
“Well, yes I had an interest in opera. I like opera as music, I don't like opera as stage. I know it's not as bad as it used to be,but I think that the acting, which is usually not that good, gets in the way. However, I think there's probably a difference between opera as we think of it now and late Victorian opera, especially as they did it at the Paris Opera House: 'Can we have one with two elephants, fifteen horses, fireworks, a complete volcanic explosion, and the destruction of an entire city?' It got to the point where it was special effects that they were after all the time. And all the men made certain they turned up by the third act because that always started with the ballet, and you could look at the actresses' ankles.”

How much control do you keep over Discworld spin-offs, such as the maps, the Clarecraft figures, and so on?
“I think it's fairly true to say I have absolute control, but you have to give people some leeway. For example, with Clarecraft I get to see the things while they're still in the roughs, as they call them. They send me a photo. And the rule that I go by is: can I prove it wrong, according to the book? So if someone is described as tall and they've done him short, that's wrong. But if someone's not described as any particular height and they decide he is a short person or a tall person, then I say that's fair enough, that's what they've extrapolated from the book. There have been little changes over the years.”

Do you keep a taste- or quality-control over it? What if somebody wanted to do Corporal Carrot boxer shorts?
“Well, let's see what is out now. People think there's a lot of spin-offs, and yet... There's a lot of spin-offs, considering that what we have here is almost entirely a book-based phenomenon. There's the Clarecraft models, and making allowance for the fact that the modellers have got to be allowed to do their own thing, I think I've got a lot of control there. The T-shirt/Unseen University scarf/holy anorak bit is really something that Stephen more or less does out of a kind of grown-up fannishness. I think he makes the odd bob or two out of it, although to be frank I thought if he actually worked out the storage costs, heating and lighting, he wouldn't be making a profit at all. I keep a fair grip on that. Then there's the Discworld game - I had a lot of involvement in the look and feel of that. There's some jigsaw puzzles coming out - one of them's of the map, and some of the Josh Kirby covers.

"There comes point where, supposing Josh said to me, 'I want to turn the covers into posters'. My view is: he's self-employed just like me - I'm not going to stop him making a dollar. They're nice covers, let him do it. I think the key thing is that the books have made me a load of money, so I don't actually need money from spin-offs. If someone wanted to do Corporal Carrot boxer shorts, it would be up to me to decide whether Corporal Carrot boxer shorts was what I'd like to see the world wearing. But I don't actually have to do it because of the money. Besides, you know what fans are like. So for example, the Unseen University scarf is a genuine university scarf. The colours are right, the coat of arms is right, it's done by people that do university scarves. There's got to be a big quality control feel to the whole thing because in a slightly different world, sometimes it seems that you can sell Trekkies practically anything."

Well, you can.
“Serious Trekkies are not going to buy a particular uniform unless the colour is pretty damn close on the Pantone scale to the original. So the people that will buy merchandising want and deserve more than just a piece of plastic from Hong Kong with the word 'Discworld' hastily painted on it. Have you noticed that they seem to have generic kids' lunchboxes which they probably stamp in their millions: oh, and now we put the Mutant Ninja Turtles sticker on; oh dear, alright, put the Power Rangers sticker on; the Batman sticker. It doesn't matter.That's what people are thinking about when they talk about merchandising.”

What news of the mooted Discworld film?
“There's a number of people out there with a finger-tip grip on some kind of Discworld, which is to say they've got options. Getting an option these days means giving someone threepence and then rushing off into the weeds shouting, 'Can anyone give us some money?' So there are a number of possibilities and lots of people talk to other people, and I just assume that nothing's ever going to happen, which is a pretty reasonable approach to take. Granada for example want to do Guards! Guards! and Men at Arms, and at the moment are looking for a good script. Cosgrove Hall would like to do, as it were, the Death Trilogy - Mort, Reaper Man and Soul Music - and they've actually gone as far as doing some specimen bits which I've seen and liked. But to some extent I hear it and I nod and I smile, and I just don't assume that anything's going to happen.

"The yardstick I use in this is that Hitch-Hiker's went multimedia very, very quickly - a film hasn't been made of that. Periodically a film is 'going to be made' and there's lots of speculation about who's going to do it, and then it sinks back into the pool again. With all that that has going for it, that hasn't made it to a film. Because sooner or later what generally happens, the ones I've been talking about here are all UK-based, where people tend to be rather higher up the food chain than they are in Hollywood. So you know that when you get an American approach, sooner or later it's going to run up against some total bastard who would have difficulty understanding that the sun comes up every day, let alone a slightly tricker concept.”

We're expecting someone to say 'We really like this Mort book. can you take Death out of it?'.
“Oh, that's already happened. They wanted Mort without Death in it. Then it went, 'Okay, we understand Death's got to be in it, but he ought to be a bad guy.' The curious thing is that 'The American public won't accept Death as an amusing, sympathetic character' was said to me about two years before Bill and Ted was made, which just shows that 'in movies no-one knows anything'. William Goldman said that.”

How pleased were you with the radio versions that have been done?
“The BBC has a big problem with fantasy, and the two radio versions that have been done recently are two ways of doing it wrong. One is to say, 'Ah, this is supposed to be funny fantasy so let's do it for laughs all the way through', and the other one is to take it so seriously that they can't loosen up. Wyrd Sisters started out okay, and then I kept shouting at them: 'You have to have a narrator.'

I spoke to the producer and she said she spoke to you occasionally and you told her, 'Make sure you don't have a narrator.'
“I think there's some confusion there. I think the key thing is that both of them suffered because they didn't have enough time. They cut quite intricate plots so that everything was rushed. I don't know. They were valiant attempts. Of course, it's the BBC. Finnish radio did a one-episode version of Reaper Man - they just used the Bill Door plot - and I think they paid me more than the BBC paid for Guards! Guards!!”

Finnish radio also not only translated all twelve episodes of Hitch-Hiker's, but they adapted books three and four too!
“I get the impression that there's only three people in Finnish radio, but they're really great guys. Because, as often is the case in Scandinavian countries, they're desperate to protect their own language against the in-roads of American and English. I suspect there's three of four guys with a shitload of money, and they're having the time of their life doing whatever they want to do.”

Most of the Discworld books stand alone. Are you tempted to put some sort of ongoing story in there?
“Well, they are stand alone. They're a series of linked individual books. For example, Words in the Head is the working title of the next one [Which of course became Feet of Clay - MJS], and that's got the Guards in again. So to some extent it's helpful if you've read the other books about the City Watch, but equally because what we're dealing with here is stereotypes of policemen anyway, it's fairly easy I think to get up to speed. I thought it's the height of bad manners to take a tenner off somebody, only to get to the end and there's some guy hanging off the edge of a cliff, and you have to buy Book Two in The Chronicles of Whoever It Is in order to find out what happens next. The books have to be complete in themselves.

"For example in the one I've just finished: I started off with the Guards as three total degenerates, then they started getting extra staff in Men at Arms, and now there's almost a complete Watch, which is fun because there's different police procedural clichés. You know that every Hollywood police movie always has the crowded scene in the station house. There's people bringing whores in, and there's people complaining, and there's a fight going off. The fantasy version of that has people bringing trolls in, and drug busts and all the rest of it.”

Do you think, 'I haven't done a Guards one for a bit, let's do a Guards one'?
“You're beginning to get into the whole alchemy of how a book actually works. The next one, which I'm going to start in a couple of weeks, is probably going to be Rincewind in Australia [That would be The Last Continent - MJS]. The nice thing about the Rincewind ones is: the other ones - I have to admit this - tend to get a bit literate at times. There's actually some serious writing there. So it was actually quite refreshing with Interesting Times to be back with Rincewind and Cohen the Barbarian. I just had a lot of fun with Interesting Times. I think it's a much better written book than, say, The Colour of Magic or The Light Fantastic. Rincewind's still there, running around, but at least he's grown up a bit.

I must admit I was rather disappointed with Interesting Times.
“If you can get hold of it, get the Isis unabridged talking book, read by Nigel Planer. It's absolutely superb, it really is. He gets all the voices absolutely right, especially Cohen's Silver Hoard. I laughed at it and I wrote it! The nice thing about the Rincewind in Australia one is that there's a whole slew of Australian stuff that I can work in that we all know: Mad Max, Tank Girl...”

Neighbours.
“Oh, good heavens, yes! Even stuff that you don't know so well, but might have heard of, like The Man from Snowy River, and all those things you can vaguely remember about Aborigines. And I can get the wizards vaguely involved. I can have a lot of fun with it.”

Every long-running series eventually says, 'Let's do the Australian one.'
“It's a separate creation, it really is. That's why the whole continent fascinates me, and I go there at least once a year. I think since 1990 I've been to Australia more times than I've been to Glasgow! It would be wrong to say I have an idea. It's like the old creation of the planets. Various ideas actually gravitate together, and you think, 'That's a bit of a story there'. Actually, it's just like running a movie studio in the golden days of Hollywood: you've got a lot of stars under contract, a good script comes in, so you think: 'Well, is this one for so-and-so or is it for so-and-so?' Is this a Guards one, or is it a Granny Weatherwax one, or is it a Rincewind one? Or is it one which needs a complete new cast? Once I've decided that, that defines things further. The bits I enjoyed most in Maskerade are Granny Weatherwax playing cards with Death, and the bit where Granny Weatherwax catches the sword, which in a sense have got nothing to do with the plot, but were such good fun to write.”

My favourie moment is the crowd chasing the Phantom onto the roof, which has a very visual gag.
“Yes. I think of them visually, and probably Maskerade more so than with any of the others. I have a suspicion that I may actually be a bit of a thespian, but one keeps quiet about it. You can get medication.”

Going back ten years or so, Discworld seemed to come out of Strata.
“Well, no it didn't. Strata was a science fiction use of the same geography, but that's all it was. there is no link between Discworld and Strata, except at the most superficial level, which after all is a mythological idea. I used it once in a science fiction idea and once in a fantasy idea, and the fantasy idea caught my imagination. There's no other link. The Colour of Magic was first published in Autumn 1983, because we had the Ten Years of Discworld Piss-up the November before last.”

Moving further back, your first book was The Carpet People, Why did you start with a children's book?
“Was it a children's book? I think what I'm saying is, for example, was The Wizard of Oz a children's book? Are the Moomintroll books children's books? I think when you're talking about fantasy, you're in an area where definitions which you feel quite confident about in other genres tend to
break down. Fantasy to some extent is uni-age. Truckers was marketed as a children's book. These days you cannot write a book about six-inch high people without it being a children's book by definition. Jonathan Swift eat your heart out. I just did it because  that seemed to be the best treatment for the idea.”

When Carpet People was republished it was fairly heavily re-written. Why Carpet People, and why were you happy enough with Strata and Dark Side of the Sun?
“I think the difference is: the real Carpet People I started when I was 17. I'm not wholly happy with Dark Side and Strata. It was really a fairly arbitrary choice because people were saying to me, 'We'll republish Carpet People.' That's what it is - it's a republished book. So I said no because I didn't think it was of a standard that I would like to be associated with now. The other two, I thought, 'Fair enough, they'd be better if I did them now, but they're okay.' By the same token I could say, 'Well, Colour of Magic is a bit old by now. I could definitely buff that up a bit.' Sooner or later you have to say, 'What the hell'. That was it; it got published. But I could see too many missed opportunities in Carpet People, so I went back and did all the writing. It didn't take an incredible amount of time.”

Are you alarmed at the exorbitant collector's prices charged for your early work?
“I read your article [Published in Book and Magazine Collector - MJS]. I'm sure I read somewhere that a particular version of Light Fantastic would be worth £750 if it ever came on the market. I don't see any of that. I find it all kind of amusing. It's a bit embarrassing when you're in a signing queue sometimes, and you see one which has clearly been liberated from a public library. There was a spate of that a few years back. But it's occasionally nice. In America, somebody gave me a mint condition Carpet People to sign: 'Can you sign it to Cuddly Bunny and Snoopikins?' And I said, 'Just before I do this, have you any idea how much this is worth?' They said, 'No' so I told them and they said, 'In that case, could you just do a signature and a date?'!

"I sometimes wonder if Colin [Smythe, Terry's agent - MJS] hasn't got a secret stash in a big warehouse: two thousand of them, let them out onto the market a few at a time, but no, he hasn't. Both of us have exhausted our supplies. Normally you get six copies of a book, and then every member of the family demands a free copy. I gave away all my copies of The Carpet People; I think I've got one somewhere. I think the same happened with Colin. The real rare ones to get, and I doubt if there's more than eight or nine, are the ones that I hand-coloured. God knows what they'd be worth.”

You were illustrating your early books. There was a certain ATom influence, I thought.
“They had a certain charm. ATom? Arthur Thompson? I suppose so. All I can remember about ATom is his spaceships. He used to do these rather strange, droopy, Concorde-y spaceships.”

The oddest of the books that you've done is The Unadulterated Cat. Where did that come from?
“It's very simple. My publisher said, 'Look, sooner or later every author has to do a funny cat book. You might as well do it now and get it over with.' You're not allowed out until you've done your funny cat book.”

You've only done a handful of short stories. Are you not happy with the medium?
“A 5,000 word short story, compared to an 85,000 word novel, probably takes up about a fifth to a quarter of the intellectual effort. Short stories are hard. Short stories aren't something that you knock off because you can't do anything else. Short stories are an art form in their own right. I can think in very short stories, I can think in 150 words, no problem. Or I can probably think in about 20,000 words. But I find it very hard to think in terms of short stories. You could argue in fact that a lot of the Discworld books have got all kinds of short stories intermingled with the main plot.”

Since Discworld book was created, the only adult fiction you've done is Good Omens. Don't you ever get an urge to do something that isn't Discworld?
“I think in a sense, because Discworld is so flexible - I can do a police procedural if I want, I can do a variant of Phantom of the Opera - there are so many things I can do in this world, that it's like moving to a reasonably large house and I haven't filled up all the cupboards yet. It's still big enough for me to do most of the things I want to do. But I can see where it's getting a bit cramped, and I think before too long I will be doing something different as well as Discworld. That will probably be fantasy.”

Can you ever see Discworld stopping?
“I can't ever see there being something called 'The last Discworld book'. There'd be something dreadfully final about doing a 'last Discworld book'.”

I remember time was when you could just go along to parties; now you have to look on your computer to see if you can squeeze in an interview. Is your time not your own any more?
“It's more my own than most people's time is their own. Most people are nine to five, one way or the other, so that time is not their own. So compared to most people, more of my time belongs to me. Equally, bearing in mind I do a job where you'd think that all my time is my own, there does seem to be a very large amount of it which does get filled up.”

I'm wondering how it's changed over the years.
“That's actually fairly sad, that sooner or later something gives. It's a little unfortunate that free time actually has to become a diary item. like 'on holiday' and you put it down and that's 'on holiday'. Because work is curiously beguiling. You're sitting there at your desk, and you're in your own time, and the next thing you know you're tapping away at the keyboard because 'and why not'? Then you're working. And then there's some mail that needs answering, and what the hell? It's a Sunday morning, and you've got nothing to do - you might as well answer the mail. But I'm enjoying myself and the money's good and the conditions are okay. I think the thing you have to remember is that there's no filter. When you start off as a writer, you're piss-poor, not making much money out of it. And hopefully you make more and do well. There's guys I know that do well out of it and don't have to really.

"But if you become successful you suddenly get the whole lot hit you in the face. Compared to people like Frederick Forsyth or Tom Clancy, I'm still grubbing around on the floor for ha'pennies. But when you get that big, you just buy a small island somewhere and shut yourself off. You do get lots and lots of calls on your time and they tend to be international things. I think what brought it home to me was a few years ago when for the third time in two months I was in a cab going to Manhattan. I was siting there thinking: 'Five years ago, just the thought of cabbing into Manhattan would have really excited me, and I want to go home. I'd really rather not be doing this.' I think the thing is that there are aspects of it which can get a bit tiresome, but at the back of your mind there's the thought that there are a thousand people out there who would rip off their left arm to be in the same position. So for God's sake you don't moan about it. You get on with it and consider yourself to be bloody lucky to be where you are.

"I have the same thing with mail. Everything says that I really ought to have a proper secretarial office to deal with it, because the mail is just getting over the top. But you know they wouldn't do it right. You're kind of defrauding people if you do that. At the moment I still manage to answer the mail. I get all these snooty letters saying, 'Dear Mr Pratchett, I know you won't read this letter...' Yes I did! I read the whole bloody letter, I really did!”

What about the loonies?
“The publishers are under orders not to filter, and curiously enough, as I understand it, my mail - believe it or not - seems to be comparatively sane. I get the occasional one in green ink on mauve paper, spiralling towards the middle. Slightly more frequent are the ones written by people who believe that legibility, grammar and punctuation happen to other people and are a bourgeois plot. But compared to what 'straight authors' get, my mail appears to be Sanity Hall. I don't find myself a recipient of strange requests and mysterious packages.”

You're the best-selling living author that Waterstones have got on their shelves, apparently.
“I have to say, I don't know if that's hype. I hear these things. I actually realise what hype now is. Hype isn't things that book publishers say. Because publishers say that about everybody. Every book they publish: 'this book is absolutely superb'. Hype happens when stuff starts to generate itself spontaneously. So you hear things like: 'a fifth of all the SF and fantasy books Smiths sell are Pratchett books'. I thought, 'That's nice'. Later on I heard: 'a fifth of all the books Smiths sell are Pratchett books'. I said, 'No, that can't be right'. And you hear these things about Waterstones' best-selling living author. All these claims aren't being made by me. I'm just sitting there, writing this stuff out, putting it in the post, and suddenly finding this is happening.”

Even when the critics like your stuff, they seem to start off by apologising.
“Well, yes. I've gone through all kinds of reactions. The classic thing is: 'Have you ever wanted to be a serious writer?' I never say, 'Look, some guy has paid fifteen quid or whatever for a book, and that's as serious as it gets.' They've given you some of their money, and as an old journalist, I think that makes it reasonably serious. There is snobbery about SF and fantasy as a genre. You can tell. When mainstream writers ocasionally dabble with SF, both they and their friends fall over themselves to declare that it's not SF. PD James has done it, and Robert Harris. I didn't like Fatherland very much: Oh dear, the Third Reich now rules the world and it has a  guilty secret. I wonder what that could be?”

And didn't Philip K Dick do that years ago?
“Yes, lots of people have, and that doesn't actually matter. Because within SF and fantasy it's all incestuous. Everyone is picking up things that other people have done and taking them a step further, doing it a different way, because that's how it goes. No-one has a copyright on galactic empires or Martian colonies. It has seemed to me that those people like JG Ballard or Iain Banks tend to suffer as a result. I suspect that people tend to walk around Iain rather cautiously because he is known to write SF, which is actually good SF, and he's pleased to admit it's SF. And JG Ballard I'll swear didn't get the Booker for Empire of the Sun because he was thought a little bit 'not one of us' because of all that SF. But when it comes down to it I don't think I could ever be a Booker contender because I was a well brought-up boy and my mother told me never to write a sentence with more than two 'fuck's in it.”

Let me put it to you, Mr Pratchett, that you are in fact a complete amateur who hasn't a clue and doesn't even write in chapters.[A reference to an infamous review by Tom Paulin on The Late Show - MJS]
“Correct. Absolutely. I am actually amateur, ie. I actually do it for the sheer enjoyment. I haven't a clue - that's absolutely correct - I don't know how it's done. But I will say the guy who walks the tightrope hasn't a clue how he walks a tightrope. He can't tell you how you do it, because it's the way you move muscles, and he doesn't even know what the damn muscles are called. But if you show him a tightrope, he'll walk across it. I could do a How to Construct a Discworld Book manual. There's a tool-box of approaches that you can use, and most of them are common to any writer. But none of us know how we do it. It's only afterwards when people like you ask us that we have to come out with all the stuff, but at the time, you're just sitting there staring at the screen or the paper, thinking: 'Now what do I do?'“

I noticed that the quote from The Late Show is the first quote in the Interesting Times paperback.
“I absolutely insisted. The guy who said that was a poet for God's sake!”

Does his poetry rhyme?
“No. It doesn't go 'ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum' either. I found some of it."

You've just finished this book. You're starting the next one next week. Aren't you going to have a bit of a breather inbetween? How are you going to start a book when you're doing a signing tour?
“I've got a portable computer. The serious writing of another book won't start for another month at least. The first third of a book is great fun, because you've got your basic idea, you've got the basic shape in your mind. You just plough along, having a lot of fun, getting your characters sorted out. The middle third of working it is second draft stuff, when you're getting on with loads of stuff, you're really making the thing operate as a book. It's like making a sculpture out of clay: you can bang the clay together, get the basic shape, then you have to prod around. The last third, while it's enjoyable, is editing: re-write and edit and chop out and edit and add and edit and put in this bit here, where you had said, 'That'll be a dull bit, got to get them from A to B, I can leave that till later.'

"So the last couple of months, as it were, you have spare cranial capacity lying idle because the book actually exists. All you're doing now is sanding it down and finishing it off. And so, at the back of your mind, the basic creative thing is saying: 'Our department's shut down now. We've got the book down the slipway.' And before I know where I am, I'm doodling another one. In fact there are two books I started some time ago and I stopped because I thought, 'Well, I'm just writing this and I haven't got any idea what happens.' Now, in both cases, I know what happens! I've got 17,500 words there - that's a good start!"

Maskerade sort of moves Discworld into the 'classic horror' genre. Do you think fantasy fans who read sword and sorcery novels will get all the references?
"What you're wearing is a Bride of Frankenstein T-shirt. Most people that read SFX have never seen the original Bride of Frankenstein, but they all recognise the whole thing, the hair, because these things have entered the public domain consciousness. And I think the Phantom has gone pretty much the same way.”

I'm waiting for you to do the Discworld Frankenstein.
“Harder to do. I've done the Golem. This is what Words In The Head's about. Curiously enough, a few months ago I was in Prague and I went along to the old synagogue where, according to legend the Golem still lies in the attic. You see the Golem is not a Frankenstein, not precisely. Only in the sense that people meddle with things which they get wrong. The Golem is far more interesting than the Frankenstein legend. Golems are a major feature of the plot of the next book.”

What's your opinion of modern horror movies?
"Well, I remember being told that Lon Chaney's Phantom was really scary, and what is it? It's a chap with a bit of pale make-up on going ...”

Some of his make-up was pretty bloody impressive, to be fair.
“Well, yes, but scary? I don't think so. If you took those people and said, 'In films in the '90s realistic dismemberment will be a commonplace element.'... I saw Under Siege 2; there was a guy having his fingers chopped off by the sliding door of a helicopter. This isn't even designed to be a horror movie. You realise that things have gradually happened and now people accept a whole lot of different things and we are living in a science fiction world. I wonder how Star Wars would go down. Curiously enough the Victorian times would be better for showing a lot of these things than some of the later ones. Star Wars might go down better in 1895 than it would in 1925. Everything was being done by the miracle of the electric fluid. You could get away with the electric fluid in those days."

Reading Interesting Times, there's bit of The Seven Samurai in there.
“One of the things that kicked off Interesting Times was a picture of the Terracotta Army. A long-time science fiction reader just can't see a picture like that without automatically thinking that someone there's a button that you press and they all stand to attention. It just seemed such an obvious thing to do, and everything wound its way backwards from that. At some point during the development I think I'd been playing Lemmings and the two just sort of naturally came together.”

I may be presuming a certain egotism here, but I noticed that the sumo wrestlers in Interesting Times are called 'tsimo' wrestlers. [My nickname in SF fandom is 'Simo', and Terry once attended a convention where I oversaw a sumo wrestling bout - MJS]
“Just purely coincidental, but I think at the Discworld Convention next year they're going to have sumo wrestling, because I said it's a great thing to have at a convention."

[When SFX interviewed authors we always asked them for comments on some of their specific books, so the following was printed as a page headed 'Pratchett on Pratchett'. - MJS]

The Carpet People
"Carpet People first edition, I think I was seriously under the influence of Tolkien, but I can detect the occasional spark of originality."

The Dark Side of the Sun
"I had a lot of fun with Dark Side. I didn't really know when I started out what I was going to do. I remember having a lot of fun writing it."

Strata
"Strata is one of the few books of mine that I can re-read quite happily, without thinking, 'Oh, I want to change this and want to do that'. I would do it differently now. Quite deliberately, I wanted to do a pastiche of Ringworld, and David Gerrold complimented me. He said there were some parts of it that read as if Larry Niven had written them. Larry Niven said he actually enjoyed it too. Because Niven heroes tend to be very competent, I wanted to get some people who certainly would act and think they were confident, but basically whose idea of 'How do you communicate with somebody when you don't know their language?' is 'Beat them up until you get them to understand!'. I enjoyed doing it."

The Colour of Magic
"Hard to remember how I felt when I was doing that. At that time, as far as I was concerned, Discworld was just a handy background against which I could poke fun at some of the over-ripe clichés of fantasy, and I didn't have any thought of it as a coherent world in its own right."

Mort
"By the time I'd got to Mort, I'd discovered the joy of plot. In many ways, Mort was one of the easiest to write. The story just started itself on page one and went all the way through to the end. I knew exactly how it was going to end. I think if I did it again, it would be better now, but it was very fresh. It was the first time I used Death as a main character. I look back on those books as almost a golden age from a writing point of view because by now there's a lot of Discworld history and geography that I have to take on board, but back in the time of Mort I was still painting with a big brush."

Wyrd Sisters
"I did Wyrd Sisters because I wanted to go in a slightly different direction. I literally started Wyrd Sisters the same night that I finished the previous book, which was Sourcery. I just did the joke - 'When shall we three meet again?' - and that really played on my mind. I didn't really know what I wanted to do with Wyrd Sisters until I was about halfway through the first draft. It was very enjoyable to work with effectively an all-female cast. I realised there was a whole new dimension there that was new to me."

Eric
Eric was really almost commissioned by Gollancz as a vehicle for Josh Kirby to illustrate. Could I do a 40,000 word novella, or novelette, or novelino, or whatever they're called? So I thought, 'Well, on that basis we're not talking about a major plot structure here. We're talking about Rincewind.' And I thought that loosely basing it on the Faust myth would give me a lot of opportunities and there'd be lots and lots of interesting things for Josh to draw. It was as simple as that. I always find it embarrassing that it's now a fully fledged Discworld novel and it's only about 40,000 words long. Originally it had all these colour illustrations.”

And what an intelligent and good-looking hero it's got.[The eponymous hero of Eric looks a lot like I did back then, although I never met Josh Kirby - MJS]
“Yes! Then they said they'd like to bring it out without the illustrations and I said, 'You're daft, no-one will buy it.' I think it sold 100,000 very quickly."

Good Omens
"A lot of fun. We did it as a summer job. It took us somewhere like six weeks to do the first draft, six months to do the second draft, because that included explaining the jokes to the American editor. It was the first book that I have been associated with that was ever auctioned. If that hadn't been the case, I may still have been saying, 'Hi, Mr Gollancz, here's a book. Can I have half a crown please?' It was auctioned after we'd written it. It didn't come under the Gollancz contract because it was a joint book. I was still doing a six-book contract, and while the six-book contract had given me financial independence, what looked like an incredibly good deal when I was about to start the first book, wasn't quite such a good deal at the end, when the perceived value of the Discworld name was that much higher.

"So Good Omens went out to auction, and when the bid went over six figures and was still going up merrily, I must confess I was starting to get quite nervous. We both talked about doing a sequel, then we both realised that the other guy didn't want to do a sequel. It was a great relief to find that we quite enjoyed doing it once and we didn't want to do it again. Which was the best decision we ever made because the sequel that we never wrote would of course be a lot better than any sequel we did write. It's actually quite refreshing that sometimes you just do a book and that's it. You don't have to do a sequel. It's not like the film industry."

Reaper Man
"Reaper Man's a bit of a mess. I think quite an enjoyable mess but I ran two plots together. I had the comparatively serious Bill Door subplot, and then the jolly Windle Poons subplot which is full of wizards running around, and the things occasionally met where they touched. There were lots of bits in it that I really enjoyed, but really Reaper Man was two novels compressed into one."

Soul Music
"Soul Music exorcised a lot of rock'n'roll ghosts. You would have to be fairly good and have a sort of crossword puzzle mentality to spot every single rock'n'roll lyric that's disguised in the text. But that was one where the plot shape is almost forced on you. As soon as you come up with the idea, which is not a particularly difficult one, that rock'n'roll is, as it were, a living thing and will try and snare you in a devil's bargain. There's a lovely line in a song by the group Icehouse: 'Let those horses loose again / Come on, let's make a deal / Your name in lights, just like Jimmy Dean / Live and die behind the wheel.' It's funny how James Dean is always this rock'n'roll hero, given the fact that he never made a record, got involved with some rather embarrassing teen movie, and had the good fortune to run smack into someone called Donald Turnupseed. This guy went down in history as the guy that James Dean's car ploughed into. So the plot was forced on it, and I just thought it would be nice to try almost a female version of Death. Make a genuine human being do the Death job and make her female. But that's one where a structure was more or less forced on me by the nature of the plot."

Maskerade
"Difficult because that's one of the newest ones and the most on my mind. I always distrusted the Phantom of the Opera musical, long before I'd ever seen it. I thought, 'Hang on a minute, this guy has just killed two quite innocent people and yet he's a romantic hero. String him up!' They knew what to do with old Lon Chaney - beat him up and throw him into the river. I distrusted it a bit because it seemed to be saying that with enough style you could get away with anything. That's why I dislike the cult of the modern vampire novel. I don't really care if vampires are agonised, romantic heroes. Cut their head off and fill the hole with garlic, that's what you do with vampires! We're talking here of a species that thinks of humanity as sort of walking cattle, as a load of potential empties. I get very angry when I think that style can really take the place of morality. Out of that anger I thought, 'Well, let's try retelling the Phantom tale.'

"I don't know whether you spotted this, but you may have noticed a certain superficial resemblance between Walter Plinge and the character that Michael Crawford used to play. That's a little joke for the buffs, although he's a much more tragic character than Frank Spencer. I didn't make that stuff up about Walter Plinge, that's all true. 'Walter Plinge' is a theatrical version of 'AN Other'. This is one for all the people on alt.fan.pratchett that go through all the books looking for every reference. I just wanted to retell the books slightly. It always seemed to me that there are the people with the style that get away with it, and there are the poor pedestrian sods who get the shit. I just like to retell the story to let the poor downtrodden sods occasionally win in the end. The other thing is that quite genuinely the world of opera is such an introverted one. When you get someone like Granny Weatherwax involved who will just have no truck with any of that kind of thing, you just know I'm going to have a lot of fun."

If someone had never read one of your books, where would you recommend that they start?
"It depends. If I met the person, I would be able to make a specific diagnosis, but curiously enough, I wouldn't necessarily say the first book. I think Mort's a good one to start with because it's very easy to get. Mort is close to the film equivalent of a high concept."

What are your views on fandom in general, and Discworld fandom in particular?
"I used to think that you go along to say a Star Trek convention, and you see someone who is definitely a 'Person of Girth', an 'Individual of Gravity', and there they are in their Star Trek uniform. I used to think, 'God, this is sad,' and now I think, 'What the hell, anyway!' Anyone can redesign themselves if they want to, if they think they can carry it off. If they want to change their name or if they want to have artificially implanted incisors, which is now all the rage apparently: great. They're not hurting anyone else, they're not making offensive smells, they're not frightening the horses, to use the old phrase. It's not up to anyone else to say that's a sad thing to do. Actually, curiously enough, the people who say 'sad' are actually sad anyway. All the old 'fhans'. It's their business, good luck to them, let them have fun with it.

"Once upon a time I used to think Star Trek folks were pretty low. But there's nothing actually wrong with it. Although if look at some of The Next Generation and so on, it's all a bit Southern Californian. I liked the days when old Captain Kirk used to kick Klingon arse and no two ways about it. He didn't take advice from no damn barmaid. Compared to an awful lot of activities people get up to in this world, being a Trekkie is a fairly harmless and occasionally a fairly creative thing to do.

"I've recently been to a couple of American conventions and as you know some American fans do tend to be a bit ... they experience their own tidal forces. And yet they'll join in the masquerade and everything. By and large, people accept them, because they're all there having fun. You think, 'Why am I being Mr Smart-Alec, Cynical European? This is actually quite great!' There's no downside to it. So the lady's Star Trek uniform is 15 acres of spandex? She's having fun, everyone else is having fun, there's actually no down side.”

Presumably you'll have all these overweight Rincewinds and Granny Weatherwaxes wandering around at the Discworld Convention.
“It was interesting. You know Clarecraft had an open day? They had a thousand people go along to that. And at the masquerade, there were entries in that masquerade that would not have disgraced a Worldcon stage. There was a Granny Weatherwax: you see her chatting to him at the beginning and think,'It's just a lady that you stand behind in the post office queue.' She went on the stage, turned her back on us, turned round, and she just acted the part. She was just sort of frowning at the hall. And there was Mrs Cake with the huge hair-do, and a superb Detritus whose knuckles actually dragged on the ground. Gaspode the Wonder Dog was a dog - called Gaspode! He looked exactly right and he won the special prize: we went and got him a burger off the van outside! It was actually a real fun
occasion and I signed books for six hours solid. It was a really great time. We're not going to do it on an annual basis, because it was a lot of effort to organise. People could buy the whites, as they call them, the resin casts, and they worked out why Discworld models cost such a lot. Because you have to be good to actually get the paint on right. There was some great stuff there. Granny Weatherwax was actually old enough to be Granny Weatherwax.”

The Terry Pratchett Granny Weatherwax or the Josh Kirby Granny Weatherwax?
“She was absolutely the Terry Pratchett Granny Weatherwax. Clarefract have done the three witches as plaques. She was exactly how I would imagine Granny Weatherwax to be. there was absolutely no doubt about it. We wouldn't dare not give her the prize. I just got a lot more tolerant about things. I will add this, because I think this has been a drawback of UK SF fandom, and I suppose I'm as much a guilty party as anybody else, although I've never organised a convention. I go to lots of cons overseas, and by and large overseas cons are Cons. It doesn't really matter what particular part of the broad church of science fiction and fantasy you follow. You go along for the con, and there's something there for you, and you all just muck in. There was a con over in Florida the other week. In the masquerade there were all vampire types and there was a Star Wars tableau - which got a really big cheer, too - and there was a Star Trek character, there was a Red Dwarf character. It really did seem the thing was about a thousand fans of the genre.

"Whereas the UK scene now seems a lot more cynical because I think what happened is book-based fandom - you know; 'I've got Eric Frank Russell's cap', the people who consider themselves 'SF' as opposed to 'sci-fi' - have always disliked the in-roads of the Star Trek, Blake's 7, Babylon 5, Red Dwarf, Prisoner thing. And so here, by and large, it seems to me, you go to a 'general convention' or you go to a 'Trek convention', although of course they have Trek conventions in the States. But basically you decide what it is you want, and you go to that type of con. I've been to conventions in New Zealand, Canada, Australia and America, so let's stick to the English-speaking countries. They always seem to be generic 'SF and fantasy conventions'. Someone who particularly enjoys, say Greg Bear for example, doesn't feel particularly ashamed of reading a Star Trek novel.

"What I'm really getting at here; I think it's vitally important at the masquerade you have a chance of seeing a young woman in leather underwear. Masquerades seem to be far less a feature of classic British conventions. I haven't been to as many UK cons recently because I tend to be elsewhere. The classic, book-based, BSFA crowd appears to be just getting older. The other thing is, it's hermetic. You actually get conventions that almost boast that they don't advertise. Now it's fairly easy to find out about a Red Dwarf convention and incredibly easy to find out about a Trek convention because it'll be in the local paper: 'Star Trek loonies beam into town'. In a sense the mainstream SF fandom is seeing its natural recruits all joining up other groups.

"I did a thing for Channel Four at Worldcon, and you know that you're trying to do positive stuff, but you can look down at the floor and see that the cameraman's going to take a picture of that very fat girl, or that guy dressed up as a woman or something. In a sense that stuff's easier in the States, but it's certainly not easier in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, all of whom have smaller populations. The conventions for what might loosely be called the broad church of SF seem to be more fun because the people who have come in via media fandom are actually encouraged to read. They're taught the shapes of the letters. And the people who are basically book-based SF fans do get a chance to see young ladies in leather underwear, which is a very important thing. Never miss a chance to see young ladies in leather underwear because one day you'll be on your deathbed and you might realise that there were opportunities to see young ladies in leather underwear which you missed. It's too late, there's no going back!"

Xtinction: Predator X

$
0
0
Director: Amir Valinia
Writer: Cameron Larsen
Producers: Matt Keith, George M Kostuch, Cameron Larsen
Cast: Elena Lyons, Lochlyn Munro, Mark Sheppard
Country: USA
Year: 2010
Reviewed from: UK DVD

No, it’s not the ninth sequel to Predator. It’s actually a SciFi Channel movie about a giant pliosaur. And it’s not terrible. It’s watchable. And in a world where things like Attack of the Sabretooth get made, that’s quite an achievement.

The inspiration of this film was evidently a palaeological discovery on the Norwegian island of Svalbard in 2009. A handful of pliosaur bones from a previously undescribed species implied that the creature was enormous, about 50m long. Way bigger than any other pliosaur and a contender for the title of most impressive and fierce prehistoric marine reptile of all. Pending full analysis, the animal was dubbed ‘Predator X’.

Oho! (cried the producers of this film) - that sounds like a SciFi Channel monster! And so this feature was quickly bashed out, although for some reason it seems to have initially been broadcast under the title Alligator X(!). The DVD calls it Xtinction: Predator X. I smell studio lawyers, to be honest.
Not that the title really matters because what we have here is an off-the-shelf creature feature with some fun performances, crappy but not disgraceful CGI effects, a competent script and occasional moments of directorial flair.

Elena Lyons (Devil’s Prey) stars as Laura, returned from the big city to the Louisiana bayou where her father Pappy runs a swamp tour boat business that’s not doing so great, a situation not helped by the recent disappearance of Pappy himself. Lochlyn Munro (Needful Things, Trancers 4, Scary Movie, Dracula 2000, Freddy vs Jason) is Tim, the local Sheriff who carries a torch for Laura. And British-born Mark Sheppard (Megalodon, Evil Eyes, Supernatural) is Charles, her ex-husband who is some sort of geneticist or palaeontologist or herpetologist or, well, ‘scientist’ of some sort. He was a university professor but was dismissed for unethical practices.

Something big and nasty is swimming in the swamp and it doesn’t take us long to see that it’s a big CGI pliosaur, just as promised on the DVD sleeve. The creature itself is not too bad – and used sparingly – but what lets it down is the way that when it surfaces, splashing around and chomping on folk, there’s not a ripple on the rest of the water.

Lacey Minchew (Wolfesbayne and a 2009 version of The Dunwich Horror) and Gabe Begneaud (Ghostquake) are Mandy and Matt, a young couple who are Laura’s only customers; he’s a marine about to ship out who wants to propose to his girlfriend as the sun sets over the swamp. Rapper Pall Wall is Froggy, Laura’s less than competent mechanic, while Caleb Michaelson (director and star of Supernatural Swamp Slaughter!) is Tim’s brother Henry, a wet-behind-the-ears deputy. But the main bad guys are the Boudreaux Brothers: weaselly Barry (Ricky Wayne: House of Bones, Monsterwolf, Flying Monkeys, Mosquito Man and a 2014 remake of The Town That Dreaded Sundown) and hulking, slow Larry (Scott L Schwartz: Shock ‘Em Dead, Centurion Force, The Scorpion King and Hagrid in a very unofficial thing called Harry Potter in the Hood!). They’re the ones feeding the beast on unlucky passers-by, but who are they working for, eh? I wonder which of our main cast could have the scientific knowledge to somehow recreate a huge, prehistoric reptile…

Quite how this scientific miracle has been achieved is glossed over. The crux of the plot is that the bad guy wants to buy the area of swamp owned by Pappy because the brackish water there is sufficiently saline for the marine creature to live. There is some discussion of how osmosis works but it’s all moot of course because the beast is quite clearly happily swimming about all over the place. And it has a nest with eggs, presumably created through parthenogenesis, which will hatch out and destroy everything, except that the nest is swiftly forgotten anyway.

The meat of the movie is Laura and Mandy escaping from, then being pursued by, Barry Boudreaux who is a surprisingly effective and nasty psycho character and certainly more interesting than the real villain. This part of the film has the advantage of featuring relatively little of the dodgy CGI creature and features some real tension as the two women, tied to chairs, attempt to extricate themselves by either physical or psychological means.

Along the way, some characters we really care about get hurt or even killed and there are just enough touches of directorial style, little bits of roving camera-work for example, to show that at least some of the people involved cared about what they were making. The denouement, however, is literally out of nowhere as a previously unseen character suddenly saves the day.

Multiple members of the cast have also been in Journey to Promethea, Terror Trap, Flesh Wounds and a 2012 version of Mysterious Island. Scriptwriter Cameron Larsen shares story credit with producer George M Kostuch, actor Caleb Michaelson and, somewhat delightfully, costume designer Claire Sanchez. More horror films written by costume designers, that’s what the world needs. Larsen also wrote the enjoyable and under-rated Sand Sharks as well as the aforementioned umpteenth version of Mysterious Island.

Director Amir Valinia’s other credits include another X-film, Outbreak X (aka Mutants) plus Dream Home and Carnivorous aka Lockjaw: Rise of the Kulev Serpent. He also directs music videos and hiphop themed pictures like Da Block Party.

The visual effects were handled by Scott Wheeler’s company Rogue State; Wheeler’s other credits include Avalanche Sharks, Sand Sharks, Dragon Wasps, Poseidon Rex, Boa vs Python and a bunch of The Asylum titles including Mega-Shark vs Giant Octopus and Mega-Piranha. Cinematographer John Lands must get fed up with being mistaken for John Landis; editor Christian McIntire worked on the likes of Velocity Trap and Darkdrive back in the 1990s; production designer Robert W Savina started out on sex comedy All-American Orgy; and composer Kenneth Hampton has gone on to score such modern-day classics as Vampires: Rise of the Fallen, Moon Creek Cemetery, Diary of a Serial Killer, Blood Redd, The American Werewolf Project, Lazarus Rising and Cannibal Zombie.

We’ve all seen a lot worse than Xtinction: Predator X (which is also aka Jurassic Predator!). It’s a reasonable way to pass 80-odd minutes and won’t make you shout at the screen of bang your head on the wall. Ironically, the real Predator X, or Pliosaurus funkei, turned out to be smaller than expected, although still quite large.

MJS rating: B-

Hell Town

$
0
0
Directors: Steve Balderson, Elizabeth Spear
Writers: Steve Balderson, Elizabeth Spear
Producers: Steve Balderson, Elizabeth Spear
Cast: Krysten Day, Amanda Deibert, Pleasant Gehman
Country: USA
Year of release: 2015
Reviewed from: online screener
Website: www.dikenga.com

For those of us who have been following Steve Balderson’s career, Hell Town is exactly what we have come to expect, in that it is completely unexpected. For starters, it’s a horror film. A black comedy, certainly, but revolving around a serial killer, and some of the deaths are quite unpleasant and gruesome (in a blackly comic sort of way).

Steve’s work has bordered on horror before: Pep Squad was a tale of high school psychopathic murder dark enough to play at genre festivals like Fantasporto (where I saw it, and first met Steve’s producer father Clark). His sophomore work (and magnum opus), the stunning Firecracker certainly contained some disturbingly horrific elements, not least its Browning-ian use of real sideshow freaks. And before Pep Squad Steve even made an amateur, feature-length vampire film. But this is his first full-bodied horror flick.

It’s also a soap opera. Not figuratively or metaphorically but literally. Taking the concept of the three-act structure to its logical conclusion, Steve and co-director Elizabeth Spear have fashioned the story as three consecutive mid-season episodes of a fictitious TV serial, including opening and closing credits (inspired partly by the modern habit of watching TV episodes back to back in a ‘box set’). The acting is deliberately mannered (as is the direction) but not over-the-top or played for laughs. We’re not watching Acorn Antiques here.

The story concerns two families: the Manlys and the Gables. Trish Gable (Krysten Day, a regular at Wamego’s Columbian Theatre) is the perky, peppy blonde prom queen looking to give away her “other virginity” to the right guy. Her bitter, jealous sister Laura is played by BeckiJo Neill in ‘episode 7’ and then recast without explanation from ‘episode 8’ onwards in the person of Jennifer Grace (Marybelle in The Casserole Club), who looks almost nothing at all like her predecessor. Bobby (Blake Cordell) is their slender, effete brother who is not entirely out. Moody emo BJ (Sarah Napier) and their father (Jeff Montague) complete the family. (Montague is missing from the IMDB cast list, possibly because of… well, you can google the guy.)

The Manly boys do their best to live up to their name by wandering around shirtless for much of the film. There’s Blaze Manly (Matt Weight, also co-producer: Ian in Occupying Ed), his brothers Butch (Ben Windholz) and Jesse (Owen Lawless) plus sister Chanel (Amanda Deibert, standing out among a strong cast). Deibert was Tiffany in The Far Flung Star and Lucy in Occupying Ed; she has horror previous including Andrew Muto’s Blood Runs Black and was even in a Creep Creepersin movie! Chanel is Trish Gable’s nemesis and, in a running gag, works in every dining/retail establishment in town. Of course, it wouldn’t be a Steve Balderson joint without a role for Pleasant Gehman and here you get two Plezes for the price of one. She is ‘Mother Manly’, lying comatose on a bed throughout, and also the scheming nurse who cares for her.

Among all the unrequited crushes, backstabbing bitchiness, repressed sexuality, sibling rivalry and general small-town angst, there is the little matter of the ‘Letter Jacket Killer’ who is offing local youngsters in a variety of sadistic ways. Well, I say ‘youngsters’ but in the grand tradition of American movies, all these ‘high school students’ are clearly in their mid-twenties. And within the artificiality of the soap opera conceit, that is exactly as it should be.

The two-headed directorial beast that is Steve and Liz manages proceedings with an acute awareness of both soaps and slashers, never missing a trick for a camera cliché, a hackneyed line of dialogue or an overwrought bit of plotting. It’s a truism that you have to be very good at something in order to effectively lampoon a bad version of that thing without yourself appearing bad, and that’s certainly the case here (the sine qua non of this principle is, in my humble opinion, the Bonzos track ‘Jazz, Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold'– what do you mean, you’ve never heard it?). Anyway, Steve is of course a hugely talented and experienced film-maker whose career I have been following for the best part of two decades. Elizabeth Spear is a new name to me.

According to the IMDB (and with all the caveats such a phrase implies) she has made seven previous features since 2003, including dramas, comedies, a documentary, a war film; some of them co-directed with other people. It would seem from Hell Town that she meshes well with Steve B. But then a real TV soap would have different directors for different episodes anyway.

I’m no soap-watcher but I do like a nice slice of horror and Hell Town works admirably as a pastiche of the slasher genre, benefitting (I believe) from having been made by somebody who normally works well outside said genre. Far too many ‘slasher comedies’ are lamentably unfunny and self-indulgent: of interest only to obsessive slasher fans, the sort who don’t care about character, only about deaths. By presenting the tale of the Letter Jacket Killer as a slice of soap opera, Steve and Liz foreground the characters. And although some of the minor ones outside of the two main families have little time to register before becoming bloody corpses, we can infer that we would have known them a whole lot better if we had seen Season One and the preceding six episodes of Season Two. (There is an opening caption explaining that the entire first and third seasons on Hell Town have been lost, and I really hope that Steve makes a lot more of this fictitious ‘real story’ behind the series when he starts publicising Hell Town, mainly because there’s so much fun to be had there.)

Jake Jackson supplied the excellent special effects make-up for the various kills. This is his second film gig following a thriller called Erasure; he has also worked on stage productions of Shrek, Young Frankenstein and The Tempest. Nancy Cox provided the regular hair and make-up.

Several of the supporting cast were also in Occupying Ed and The Far Flung Star. Michael Page, Connor Lloyd Crews and Chris Pudlo all receive ‘additional writing’ credits. Cinematographer Daniel G Stephens, who has previously worked with both directors, credited here with ‘special photographic effects’, lights every scene with a TV sensibility that doesn’t detract from the movie experience. And an extra special treat for long-time Balderfans is the return to the fold of the legend that is Betty O, for the first time since Stuck!, here appearing as a TV news reporter.

Hell Town is a hoot to watch and gives every impression of having been a hoot to make, which I think is characteristic of Steve’s films in this  part of his career. It’s not quite up there with the wonderful Occupying Ed, partly because the soap opera conceit necessarily robs the film of a layer of sincerity. On the other hand, I much preferred it to Steve’s two lightweight international capers The Far Flung Star and Culture Shock. It’s a real treat to see Steve working within the horror genre and bringing that unique Wamego touch to the tired tropes and corny clichés that we all know and love.

MJS rating: A-

A Date with Ghosts

$
0
0
Director: Jason MJ Brown
Writer: Jason MJ Brown
Producer: Jason MJ Brown
Cast: Jason MJ Brown, Sadie Kime, Deborah Carlin
Country: UK
Year of release: 2015
Reviewed from: screener
Website: Facebook page

What the heck did I just watch? A Date with Ghosts is so random, so inconsistent, so sparse in its narrative and characterisation, that it approaches a sort of transcendental abstractness. Throughout the film I had no idea who any of the characters were, where they were, what they were trying to do, how and why they were trying to do it, what was preventing them from achieving their goals, or even what time of day it was.

To call the film’s attitude to the passage of day and night ‘cavalier’ would be mild. Scenes which are apparently meant to be consecutive switch almost at random between bright daylight, pitch darkness and evening shade. Partly this stems from hopelessly over-ambitious attempts to shoot some stuff day-for-night (a technique which always looks rubbish, even when done by experienced professionals) but a lot of the day/night confusion seems to simply be a devil-may-care approach by director-writer-producer-editor-cinematographer Jason MJ Brown. A similarly reckless abandon characterises such relatively minor dichotomies as summer/winter and woodland which switches casually between deciduous and coniferous.

While I can’t say what A Date with Ghosts is actually about, I can say with some certainty what it’s not about, and that’s the brief synopsis used on Facebook, Amazon etc: “A group of friends descend upon an abandoned monastery looking for a good time - only to find that once they are inside, they have been trapped by unknown, paranormal forces and soon become hunted by a army [sic] of undead monks who have a taste for fresh human souls. Now, the group must harness the mysterious forces of the monastery to escape the clutches of the centuries-old spirits.”

There’s no group of friends, no-one is looking for a good time, and the ‘abandoned monastery’, referred to in the film as an 'abbey', is played by a variety of buildings inside and out including a ruin with English Heritage information boards on the wall and at least two quite attractive functioning churches (one stone, one wooden) which are clearly in regular use. The one thing that the synopsis does get right is the ‘undead monks’ as there are a number of ghostly beings shuffling around in some very creased habits, occasionally wielding a nasty-looking sword.

A young man and a young woman feature in the early scenes, which involve the rescue of another young woman from the abbey. Who are these people? Beats me. Not only do we never learn anything at all about any character in this film, in fact some of them never even reveal their names. The boyfriend is ‘Lee’ but I have no idea what the girls are called. On the IMDB, the characters are just credited as ‘Lead guy’ (played by JMJB himself) and ‘Lead girl’.

About 27 minutes into this 73 minute film, we are suddenly presented with a caption that says ‘Part 2’ and a diary entry from someone saying they are unable to ‘eascape’ [sic] from the monks. This plunges us into the tale of another young couple, a brother and sister whose names we never learn, hiding from the monks inside a cave. This has been lit with a selection of ornamental candles which we must assume these two were carrying with them when they visited the abbey/monastery/church. Maybe they had just been to Homebase. After a bit, they meet up with one of the girls from the first story.

Quite what is happening throughout the film is a mystery as we’re never given any hint of an actual plot beyond a throw-away line of dialogue about somebody or something trying to open a portal to Hell. There’s a lot of running around, and spooky shots of the ghost-monks (who seem to have variable levels of corporeality) and of course the constant distraction of location and time seeming to change on a whim.

The cast are credited with the (generally very poor) camera-work and this is very evident in the massive variability of the images, which also reflects the sporadic shooting schedule which ran for two years (2010-2012, at various locations around Nottinghamshire). To be fair, the sound recording and mix is pretty good, apart from disappearing completely in a few non-dialogue shots. Parts of the film are in black and white which I presume was deliberate but I don't know why.

I have no doubt that Jason Brown knew what he wanted to do when he set out to make A Date with Ghosts but what comes across is a group of people basically making things up as they go along, riffing on the vague idea of ‘ghost monks terrify young people in old abbey’. There is also a considerable amount of padding at the start. A prologue has a girl (possibly the one later rescued) creeping around outside a church before being grabbed by someone/thing. Then after some titles (probably the best part of the whole film) we watch the unnamed girlfriend drying her hair and applying make-up. And getting into her car. And driving down the high street…

In a park, she holds her phone up high to try and get a signal, then gets through to ‘Lee’ but says “the line is bad” so she’ll “come back” to him. I don’t know much about mobile phones but surely you can either get a signal or not. And how is she coming back to him when she hasn’t been with him since applying her lippy. We’re eight minutes in, more than ten per cent of the film, and basically nothing has happened yet.

Next thing we know Lee is in the car with her, telling her he saw an injured girl (was that the prologue?), so she goes to a phone box because her mobile isn’t working (to call the Police, I think). She is adamant that they must go back to see if the other girl is okay, but Lee is frightened so she assures him they don’t need to go back to exactly where he was before. WTF? Either you’re going back to help the girl or you’re not. It was at this point that I realised there was no help to be had in the sparse, possibly improvised dialogue. A Date with Ghosts was clearly shot without a proper script and I’m afraid that’s very obvious throughout. Yes, this was is a debut feature shot for tuppence ha’penny but that’s not a reason or excuse to not have a story or characters, and doesn’t justify the constant inconsistencies visible on screen.

All the above notwithstanding, the film was picked up by Wild Eye Releasing and is scheduled for a US release in January 2015. So all credit to Jason for putting together a feature-length movie and finding a distributor. This is far from the worst film I've reviewed on this site and it is at least a sincere attempt at horror, not some cynical lampoon of the genre, for which I will give it considerable props. But... I would be lying if I said that A Date with Ghosts is either technically competent or narratively coherent.

Brown’s previous shorts were Dead Girl Walking (incorporated into the feature-length online anthology Creep Tales: The Movie) and City of Decay, and he has followed Date with a second horror feature, Dark Vale.

A final curious point to note: the sleeve image, which is not from this film, also crops up on Freakshow Cinema, a 12-picture box set from Mill Creek Entertainment (including BHR entries Idol of Evil, Tales of the Dead and Tuck Bushman and the Legend of Piddledown Dale) although I don’t think it’s from any of the films in that collection either.

MJS rating: C

interview: Ben Woodiwiss

$
0
0
This short email interview with Ben Woodiwiss was conducted in December 2014.

How did you hitch up with Simon Aitken on Blood + Roses, and how pleased are you with the film?
"I’ve known Simon for so long now that I might be remembering the details wrong, but I think we met when he was looking for a screenwriter back in… 2005 or 2006? Possible earlier. He was looking to get a short film off the ground and we ended up working together on what would become The Monologue Triptych (2007). It was on the set of that when Simon told me that he was looking to do a feature, and asked if I would like to write it. We actually went through two completely different scripts before arriving at Blood + Roses, with a whole bunch of rewrites and honing, both set in a rural backdrop, but finally Simon went with project number 3 (Blood + Roses).

"I’m very pleased with Blood + Roses, I think it’s kind of interesting how everything for me has developed along a really identifiable path since The Monologue Triptych. I never would have expected this, as I honestly believed that I’d end up as a very different type of filmmaker. But I’ve kind of grown along this path of restrictive, rule-bound cinema. I like how exploratory Blood + Roses is along the lines of the female character being both the hero, and the victim, as well as the monster of the film. I feel like that’s something that Benny Loves Killing also covers, but in a different way, and it’s heartening for me to see a set of obsessions so strongly in place at this early stage of my career."

Benny Loves Killing clearly isn’t a horror film per se, but it seems to have a psychological horror sensibility. To what extent would you agree with that?
"100%. It became quite clear to me that although as a screenwriter I work in a number of genres, when working as a writer/director I became extremely uncomfortable about the idea of working within genre parameters. But I love cinema, and horror, so where does that take you? Well, it seems like it’s taken me to a place where I’m looking at what happens when horror starts to bleed into someone’s life. And I’m not talking about axe murderers on your way to work, I’m talking about a sneakier, more insidious bleeding of film conventions into the real world. So, to give one example, Benny starts to build herself up as both the murderous brunette and the innocent blonde: both of whom are hallmarks of horror, but it’s done in a way which is very much set in a cinematic real world, rather than something which is built on conventions.

"So, yeah, the horror conventions are there, but in a really underplayed sense. On top of that, the whole film is shot through with a palpable sense of paranoia and grime, as though the entire film were a projection of Benny’s warped mind; a mind warped, arguably, by the world of horror. So in that way, you could say that the entire film is the product of horror psychology sensibilities. I’d like to point out that I don’t think my mind has been warped by horror."

How did you find your lead actress?
"We put ads out on two web services, Mandy and another one (I forget), and held open auditions for a week. Pauline Cousty, our lead, turned up to the second day of auditions I believe, and it was a fascinating experience for me. I knew that the whole film hung on the actress playing Benny, and that this had to be someone with some serious chops, and when I saw Pauline’s resume, headshot, and reel I thought, ‘nope’, but when she walked in through the door to audition I thought, ‘Oh, it’s Benny’. It really cemented for me the fact that you absolutely, 100% cannot judge an actor based on headshots and showreels alone. You need them to be standing in front of you.

"A genuine hush came over the room when Pauline ran through the scenes. She’d clearly done a lot of work in reading between the lines of who the character was, she had multiple questions for us, and was just very clearly the best person for the role. We did have a small name ready to go with the lead, but in the end we decided that it was better to go with someone unknown and outstanding, than slightly famous and competent. From that point on I never regretted anything. Pauline was a real force in the film, willing to do all the horrible things we asked her to do: we froze her, deprived her of sleep, wouldn’t let her wash for weeks, kept her continually smoking and ingesting powdered sugar up her nose, and she came back at all of this with a smile and enthusiasm. There are very few people who can do that."

How has BLK been received so far by audiences and critics?
"This might sound disingenuous, but I‘ve been very surprised at how well it’s been received. The whole point of Benny Loves Killing is that it’s something that gets under your skin and nests there. It restricts what you can see, and dripfeeds you information in a way that it requires a viewer to really do some thinking about what they’re watching. So we expected it to be something of a slow burn, and that was true to a point. It certainly seemed to be the case in festivals, where often the prizes go to something crowd-pleasing or feel-good. BLK is neither of those things: it’s antagonistic, and thought-provoking, and it absolutely, positively does not want you to feel comfortable throughout.

"Initially I thought people were going to misunderstand the film when the reviews started coming in, but by and large that really hasn’t happened. People from all sorts of backgrounds seems to enjoy the film, and all of them have very personal interpretations of what is going on which work really well for me: horror fans and arthouse fans both respond well, which is something we kind of expected (although not completely, it’s always worth being prepared for surprises), but then all sorts of other film fans seem to get on board with it too. It’s been extremely heartening for me to see that the Look/Think Films team (which is a very small group of people) can go out and do something deeply difficult and personal, and people will get on board, and rise to the challenge the experience offers. It’s given me a lot of faith in people."

What are you working on next?
"At the moment I’m in post on a new short film, Look at Me Now. It’s my first foray into shooting with RAW, so that’s been interesting. It’s also a dialogue free piece. I’m a very big fan of silent cinema, and I wanted to do something that told a story without any expositional dialogue at all. Additionally, BLK has very much introduced me to the fact that I want to work on films which are in themselves an experience: something for the audience to go all the way through, rather than just being a story to tell, or a puzzle to unlock. Look at Me Now is a film about things which are universal: the body, pain, health, dying, etc. It’s a film about what it means to look back and forward at different points in your life when things were better or worse. We all do that. And hopefully it’ll be something that can mean something very, very personal indeed to everyone who sees it, but I’m also hoping that they’ll see different things inside both the film and themselves. I’m very excited to see how that film impacts on people."

Finally, what were you experiences working for Troma?
"Troma was an absolutely fantastic experience, one that I have pretty much nothing negative to say about. The great thing about Troma is that there is no nepotism there whatsoever: if you work hard, and well, then you do bigger and better things. If you slack off, then you’ll spend the rest of your time there photocopying papers or guarding a van. I worked hard, and got to work on casting, sound and camera as a result.

"It was the '90s. I got to be a key member of the crew on a 35mm feature film, shooting in upstate New York, and meeting a fantastic array of people from the genuine fringes of alternative entertainment. I spent one day looking after Taylor Mead, and for a Warhol nut like me, that’s like hanging out with <insert your hero here>. How can there be anything negative in any of this? I think I may have been something of a novelty factor for them: the English guy. But they all treated me in an extremely friendly way. Before going over there I read Lloyd’s books, and he exhibited a strong interest in Taoist philosophy regarding filmmaking, which was something I’d already got quite into. The Tao Te Ching seems to me to be the bible for independent filmmakers: understanding something like ‘the water in the stream flows around the rock, it does not attempt to flow through it’ might sound like common sense, but these are strong ideas when you’re trying to do something which is for all intents and purposes impossible. These are concepts which I genuinely believe will make someone a better filmmaker.

"Here’s a nice example of that in action: there’s a scene in Citizen Toxie where Toxie, Sarah and the gang are trying to think of a way to travel from the Amortville dimension to the Tromaville dimension. Lloyd was trying to think of ideas and my then girlfriend (who wasn’t part of the crew) came up with the idea of the whole cast posing in the position of The Thinker (the Rodin sculpture). Lloyd loved it, shot it, and it’s in the final cut of the film. That’s independent filmmaking for you right there. That’s flowing around the rock, not through it. Beautiful stuff."

website: cargocollective.com/lookthinkfilms

The Apostate: Call of the Revenant

$
0
0
Director: Andy Dodd
Writer: Andy Dodd
Producers: Andy Dodd, Phoenix Laine
Cast: James Bryhan, Terri Dwyer, Anthony Webster
Country: UK
Year of release: 2015
Reviewed from: online screener

An apostate is someone who renounces a particular religion or faith. There have been a number of films called The Aspostate including a Dennis Hopper picture from 2000 and a Russian sci-fi feature from 1987 (and an episode of Casualty). A revenant is anyone who returns from the dead (or a long absence). Richard Elfman directed a rather fun vampire picture called Revenant, starring Rod Steiger, Casper Van Dien, Udo Kier and Craig Ferguson, which I saw at Fantasporto in 1998 (although by the time it was released some idiot distributor had retitled it Modern Vampires).

One might assume that a film called The Apostate: Call of the Revenant was some sort of cheesy and/or pretentious religious horror flick - but one would be wrong. This actually turns out to be a powerful, disturbing, thoughtful and thought-provoking study of psychopathic behaviour. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it’s a belter of a film and definitely worth seeking out once it gets a proper release.

At the core of The Apostate are a brace of terrific performances: murder suspect Lance Cooper (James Bryhan: Lead Me to the Dark) and Detective Inspector Holly Andrews (Loose Women chatter Terri Dwyer, formerly of Hollyoaks and a local gal from just up the road in Syston), questioning Cooper in a featureless police station room. The film cuts between this interrogation and the events of four weeks previously when Cooper found himself, suffering memory loss, covered in blood and with a serious wound to one leg, trapped inside a small bathroom. For the first half of the film, we watch Cooper try desperately to escape and, when he finally does, try to make sense of his location and the other dead/dying people he finds there.

It’s a cracking, almost wordless solo performance from Bryhan who convinces utterly as the amnesiac victim of some brutal attacker. And if there are occasions when the viewer puzzles over choices not made – why doesn’t he use the metal pole he finds to help him hobble about? – these are excused by firstly the man’s confused, terrified state and secondly the revelations of the film’s second half.

We also cut to a couple of scenes which predate the incident. In one he searches for, and finds the body of, his young daughter. In the other, he is visited at home by an enigmatic figure with long hair and a broad-brimmed hat who describes himself as a ‘revenant’.

What we find in the second half, after a very nasty incident at about 44 minutes which forces us to rethink all that has gone before, is that Cooper is an unreliable narrator. And this is the film’s strength. Even after the credits roll, we are still unsure how much of what we saw was what actually happened, how much was what Cooper thinks happened, and how much was what Cooper told DI Andrews happened. To say more would be to spoil a film which while certainly not 'enjoyable' in any way, is nevertheless compelling and gripping and ultimately satisfying in its open-endedness.

Actually, if I have one criticism it's that a little more open-endedness would have been beneficient. The film wraps with a series of captions about each of the various characters which, honestly, aren't needed. This isn't Animal House. Let us debate who did what and why. (Also, being ultra-picky, I felt some of the text in these captions wasn't great, nor did I like the font.) That said, there is a final twist that works very well indeed.

And if I have one other criticism, it's back up at the start of the film. Yes, it's adroitly directed and Bryhan's performance is magnificent, but the story takes a lo-o-ong time to get going. What is covered in 40 minutes would work better in 30, making the shock the end of act one instead of the mid-point of act two.

But these are not deal-breakers, not major problems. They don't detract from the impact of the film. Bear in mind that I don't like violent horror movies so it's rare that I would watch something like this (I was kind of suckered in by the title...). To my surprise The Apostate proved to be a well-crafted film that more than repaid the time I spent watching, and indeed the time afterwards as I was left mulling over in my head precisely what had happened. That's the sort of effect that a good horror movie should create in its audience.

Also in the cast are Carol Cummings (who was in The Wrong Floor with me!), Bob Sanderson, Hannah Smart, Ella Childs (as the daughter), Anthony Webster (who was a beggar in The Hollow Crown) as the Revenant, and director-writer-DP-editor Andy Dodd. Alison McCabe (The Hunt for Gollum, Tales of the Supernatural) provided the excellent make-up.

The Apostate: Call of the Revenant had a premiere screening at the Telford Odeon in September 2014 but as of writing remains unreleased.

MJS rating: B+

interview: George Romero

$
0
0
This is the 800th post on my blog, so I've dug something special out of the archive. This is a phone interview that I did with the legendary George Romero in February 1997 to tie in with the VHS release of the 'Directors' Cut' of Dawn of the Dead. The interview ran in SFX but as always I had to edit it down to fit. This is the never-before-seen full transcript.

What's in the director's cut, why is it right now and not before?
"Complicated question. What is being released now is literally the first cut that we made, the first thing that we ever printed. And we did it to try to attract distribution. In other words, we did it basically completely independently. We shot the film, cut it, scored it. And Dario Argento at the time had the right to make his own cut on the picture; that was just part of the original deal. So he was off doing his cut and he was also going to go and record music from this group Goblin. And we were each of us allowed to choose. If I wanted to use the Goblin - great. If I didn't want to, I didn't have to. So we had three or four of the Goblin cuts, which is all that was recorded at the time, and I put three or four little cuts of it in this version and the rest of it in here is library stuff.

"Basically, what's on this version is everything that we thought was executed successfully enough to stand a chance of getting in the film. It was basically a cut that I felt was a little long here and there. Frankly, I've lost track. Even when we were doing the commentary I don't remember which of the scenes were cut out. It was mostly shaving: little bits here and there. They let us release the film here at, I don't know, about two hours seven minutes or something like that. I don't know what this runs. But it's mostly just little shaves here and there, and a few of the scenes, like one of the scenes when Fran and Stephen are having dinner, it's a little longer now. It's mostly like that. I think there were a few of the effects scenes that were particularly scrappy that we wound up taking out.

"There's nothing sensational in here - this isn't The Gorier Stuff because that was all in the original! At least, in the American version. I know in the UK there was some cutting or some censorship or whatever. We actually showed this to a couple of audiences, we rented a couple of theatres in New York and invited distributors to come and watch the screenings in an attempt to attract distributors. We put a little ad in the paper and said: 'We're going to show Dawn of the Dead, sequel to Night of the Living Dead.' We had packed houses both times and we just watched and decided what would make a better film. It was really just the process of editing it that brought it down.

"There were no requests by censors because United Film released it unrated here in the United States, so we didn't have to deal with that. And they didn't put any pressures on us, other than to say that they'd like it to be a little shorter. But really, to say that, I think this version plays a little long here and there. And it's mostly just 'take a breath out there', 'take this out here'. A lot of it is just that. There's nothing really new in this version that the gore fans are going to think 'W-o-o-ow!!!' So to that extent, I don't know whether it's going to disappoint or what. That's the difference."

Night of the Living Dead was very different to other 1960s horror films such as Hammer horror pictures. Were you dissatisfied with the gothic horrors of the time?
"Yes, I guess there was a real movement. It wasn't just us; it was Tobe Hooper and all those I Spit On Your Grave movies. There was a sort of subculture. And there were comic books and so forth that were going back to the more nitty-gritty, more EC kind of horror that's neither gothic nor sex-dependent nor spectacle or whatever else you want to call it. It's just the roots kind of horror. I don't want to say Twilight Zone but I don't know what exactly to relate it to in film or on TV. But yeah, we were just trying to do that. It was also all we could do within the confines of the budget. But we were perfectly happy with it because we thought it was going back to the roots somehow."

Did you expect NOTLD to be a big hit or just a small start in feature films?
"That's exactly what we thought. We thought it would be picked up and it would go out to neighbourhood theatres and drive-in theatres. There were probably hundreds of little horror films that were being made on a hundred grand, two hundred grand - even by the smaller studios out there - that were in the drive-ins every weekend here. That's what we thought. We thought: 'We'll make it for a hundred; we'll get back five ... and then we'll make five more!' That's really all we expected. Then all of a sudden people started to talk about it and write about it.

"Actually it went out and on that circuit it was pretty successful and it did return about $500,000. And that's the only money that it ever returned, because in its whole afterlife and so forth, people stopped reporting; we wound up in courts with them; there was a copyright dispute. It was just terrible - although from what I understand a very typical - young film-maker's experience. Getting knocked off, and all that. But atypical to the extent that it went out and it came back to life like the zombies. It had this incredible afterlife in France, and once that happened of course, people here had to start looking at it. And it was invited into the Museum of Modern Art and so forth. I'm sitting there going, 'My God!!!'

"I think it's a combination of circumstances. I don't think it's sterling film-making. We were just feeling our way and we were restricted so much budgetarily and so forth that I think it has a kind of naive integrity. And I think some of the choices: like a couple of weeks into the shooting when we started to raise money, we talked about reshooting what we'd already done and starting over in 16mm and going colour. Because everyone was saying, 'Wow! You really should do it in colour.' And we decided to stay with black and white. I grew up with black and white films. When I was growing up, in those impressionable years, even the news was in black and white. So black and white has always been a bit more realistic to me than colour! The most effective blood image I've ever seen is Marlon Brando's face in On The Waterfront when he gets beaten up. There's something about black and white that, to me, just plays more realistically. And I also just happen to love the monochromatic."

I understand that you had to use chocolate sauce as blood because the fake blood wouldn't photograph properly in black and white.
"Yes, we wound up using chocolate sauce."

It makes it a whole lot less scary when you know that. What did you think of all the dodgy European zombie films that followed?
"What do I think? I don't know. I guess I've largely ignored them. I didn't like the Return of the Living Dead films. Most of that stuff happened, I think, more after Dawn. The real glut came after Dario's version came out. I didn't pay a heck of a lot of attention to them. If there were a couple of good ones I'd love to check them out. But I just never really paid a lot of attention to it."

How did you first get to meet Argento?
"They approached us. I knew his work. Through a guy named Alfredo Cuomo - he's now a TV producer in Italy - who had picked up my film The Crazies for distribution in Italy. He contacted us about whether or not I wanted to make a sequel to Night because Dario Argento was a big fan and was interested in providing some of the finance. At the time I had just decided that it would probably be a good idea. Two things happened: we knew the people that owned this shopping mall and I was actually talking to them about financing the film. They were showing me around the mall and they actually had this survival space there which was equipped with civil defence stuff and all that. I just said, 'Wow! That would be perfect.'

"I had also just gotten the idea - gotten the conceit, I guess - that gee, it would be nice to do one of these things for every decade and try to reflect the attitude of the times. Instead of doing a direct sequel and having the same characters, just sort of continue to show what's happening in the world, while this phenomenon is going on. And try to give each one a different personality which might reflect the socio-political attitudes of the times."

Does that mean that you might return to the series?
"I'd love to do a '90s one, actually! I really would love to do it. the problem is making a deal. There are so many people now with fingers in the pie - ownership, rights, one thing or another - that it's really very hard to put a deal together. So I don't know that it's ever going to happen. I'd love to. I've expressed my desire and willingness to all the players. But everyone wants 51%!"

I understand Day of the Dead was planned to have whole battalions of zombies, but had to be scaled down. How much of your original idea made it in there?
"Many of the concepts and the ideas and the discussions in it are basically the same as in the bigger film. It's just really the circumstances that scaled it down and just used the underground city. The other thing, it was all above ground, there were living quarters for most of the humans, and compounds with electrical fences and so forth. And they were in fact farming the zombies and trying to train them and keep them outside the compounds. so it's really just the scale of it that changed more than anything else. We just weren't able to raise the money. It was budgeted at about $7 million. And we were told that if you want to leave it unrated, you can't spend more than three. So I just went and rewrote it."

How dangerous is it releasing unrated films in America? It's not something we have in the UK.
"It's not an option here either! I don't know. Until Dawn, the only stuff that was coming out unrated was like Richard Pryor concert films, stand-up films. And films that were totally benign. Dawn was maybe the first - but if not, one of the first - that tried to do it. At that time, it did well. It didn't really have an effect. Because people weren't quite as up in arms as they are now. Even when Day came out, it didn't work as well.

"Because by that time, you were so restricted as to what you could do - not just the film industry but theatre owners and the press and television. So you can't advertise. In other words, it's considered an X-rated film. There are all sorts of external constrictions on advertising and distribution and so forth and exhibition. So it's really kind of a death-blow. Unless something is so inexpensive and is going to have a long life, like Night of the Living Dead say, and can play little theatres here and there and make its money back, it's pretty tough."

How have the changes in exhibition affected the way you make films? Drive-ins have largely gone, but now you've got TV rights and video rights and so on.
"That hasn't really affected anything, because most of the companies that are putting up money - certainly advance money - for that kind of stuff, are basically owned by big companies, and it's tough! The outlets haven't provided the film-maker with any freedom. they've just provided the studio or the producing entity with some insurance. It's very weird, because for example if you make a deal with a company that has a video arm that releases the film on video: in your contract, as far as the percentages or the back-end that you're supposed to get from video, you don't get the flack.

"You're dealing with one company, and you say okay, you're supposed to get 25%. And even though it's the same company releasing the video, the film financing group only gets 20% back from the video arm of that company, so now you're only getting 25% of 20%! You're just getting knocked off, basically. I keep saying that if any company could see its way to giving film-makers a fair shake, everyone would flock to their door. it's really, really very hard unless you're a big star and they know they're going to want you again next time."

Have you seen much of the stuff being made by young directors nowadays?
"I've not seen much of it, no. I've been disappointed so many times that I've given up on it. I don't know. There was a whole phase with Band, when there was Re-Animator and there was some good little things coming out there. I don't know; maybe some of that stuff is happening again on video. A guy named Bob Schnell - I saw a couple of films which he did which I thought were very nice."

Do you think something like NOTLD could get made nowadays?
"I'd say so, yes. We went back to Cannes last Spring for the first time in eight years, my wife and I and some other people that we're working with. I'm back in touch with some of the guys like Ben Barenholtz and people who are interested in doing little independent stuff. because I'd love to get back into it. I'm so frustrated with the Hollywood system. I've been in development for ... five years! Literally we're going into the sixth year of development on one project and it's just driving me nuts! So I'm thinking, within the genre I could become the genre's version of John Sayles. Which is: make my money writing and go out and make little films."

What is this thing that's been stuck in development hell?
"It's a ghost story that we've been trying to get made for years. It's been at MGM, now it's at Fox. And it's just at that budget level where they think it's star-dependent. So okay, you need to attract stars, so you have to rewrite for so-and-so. Or we have to rewrite so that we can attract someone. All the stuff that you read about in those little This is Hollywood books - really happens! Those meetings really happen. And then of course it's months between phases because you submit a draft, and everybody's too busy to respond. the producer on this film is Chris Columbus - we lost him for about six months because he was making Jingle All the Way!

"So you just get tired of spinning your wheel. I've got 14 screenplays and haven't shot a frame of film, except for a little thing that I did down in Florida - at a film school! Just very very frustrating. But thank God I get the gigs. You get the job to write it and by the time you've finished and have a draft that everybody likes, there's a whole new management team at the studio that doesn't like it! It's just unbelievable. If you're not on the A-list, particularly now with this blockbuster mentality. I think that's the thing. It's not only that there aren't small distributors any more, there's almost no such thing as a small film. That's why everyone is going to video; because if you make an $8 million film at a studio, they/re not going to care about it. They're not going to put it on the main release schedule, you're not going to get the good dates because they have those reserved for Independence Day or Twister or whatever else is coming up next. That's all anyone cares about out there. The twenty-or-so bankable stars are involved in those twenty projects, and everything else is the evening trade."

I saw you recently in a TV show about David Cronenberg. What are your thoughts about the 'moral panic' that films like Crash generate? Does it worry you?
"Er ... Yes. But it worries me more sociologically than it does in a career sense. It worries me more as a phenomenon. It's just like we're going back to racism, we're going back to militarism, we're turning into rednecks over here, man! So it worries me that way. It's just disheartening. But in a career sense, luckily I'm at this point where studios will continue to hire me. The stuff that I'm doing - anything that a studio hires you to do is not going to be on that borderline anyway. I have a couple of independent things that I've written that are on that edge. We're trying to get some finance. I don't know; I think we'll probably do it with a combination of European financing and independent financing. I'm not particularly worried that way."

You've done a couple of films based on works by Stephen King. What's he like as a subject to deal with?
"I used to think he was the greatest yarn-spinner in the world but that there was enough logic in his work that it was forgivable. It's very hard for me to talk about it because he's a good friend. But I think that he might be getting a bit self-indulgent. I shouldn't say that, actually. One night we had a combination and Steve said, 'How frustrating it is. I could sit down and I could pore over something and I could write it well. But I'll never get it published if I put it out under any name except mine. Really, I'm paid to write excrement!' I think he has many many underlying frustrations over the fact that he's become Stephen King the Phenom. As a result I think he winds up throwing some pies in the readers faces."

Somebody reckons you've got the rights to do a film version of The Stand.
"No, that's not true. They made that for television. But we did. It was my ex-partner Steve Rubinstein who made the TV series. When Steve and I first met, Stephen gave me, the very first night we met we were talking about Salem's Lot. Warner Brothers sent me up to Maine to talk to him because they wanted me to make Salem's Lot. Typical studio response: they saw Martin at Sundance and said, 'Gee! Vampires in a small town! This guy would be good for Salem's Lot.' So we did that dance for a while and the studio then decided that they weren't going to do it. They were going to let it go for television - that was the safest financial approach to take.

"But in the course of it they sent me up to Maine. My wife and I went up and we hung out with Steve. But then when we left he gave me a copy of The Stand and said, 'Let's make this movie some day.' He wrote that in there. And so years later we wound up getting together with Steve on a couple of other projects. And he did give us the rights. And he wrote a screenplay and I worked on it with him, and it was all very friendly. Except that at that time, Steve didn't want to go TV with it, which would have given him more running time. He also didn't want to soften it for television. He didn't want to trade off, to soften it for running time. He said he would rather do a film. He wanted to do a three-hour film.

"His script was geared as a three-hour script, it wasn't in any way softened. It was just very, very hard - heck no, it was impossible to get financing and it never happened. So then years later they decided to do it for TV. But I don't have the rights to any King material now. My partner still does. He keeps on cranking them out; he did Thinner. He just did a little film, a privately financed thing called Night Flier. Steve is now remaking The Shining. He's producing it himself - I guess he really didn't like that movie!"

Are there any books you would like to film?
"I've seen a couple. I always look into the rights, and they're either gone - one of them was The Relic. I went after that and they'd already been bought. Usually by the time that I see the stuff, there's either a prepublication deal or whatever. But I've seen a few things. There's a book called Earth Abides."

By George RR Martin.
"Yes. Those rights are gone, but I was actually talking to the producers. But I don't think I'll get it - I don't think I'll get the job. Every time I see something that takes my fancy I'll try to go after it. But the good stuff usually gets grabbed up before I ever get to see it."

As a director/screenwriter, do you prefer original work or adaptations?
"I prefer originals. I wrote the screenplay for Creepshow 2 which was an adaptation of Steve's. Which was hard for me because of the friendship and because of not wanting to step on anybody's ideas. Then I adapted a novel called Monkey Shines which was also tough because I get a little too
worried about: 'Well, what's this guy going to think? Whose is this anyway? Do I have the right to change it this radically?'"

Why did you feel the need to do an anthology TV series? What did Tales from the Darkside have that The Twilight Zone didn't?
"I don't know that it wasn't done. I mean, Twilight Zone was quite a while ago, and I thought that the reincarnations of it never worked. I didn't even think that Night Gallery worked very well. Outer Limits and Twilight Zone I guess are my faves, the original versions. At the time, everybody that was doing it was doing it without real affection. Amazing Stories I thought was just a blunder from top to bottom."

It wasn't amazing and it had no stories in it.
"And loving the genre, we were just approached by a group who said, 'What about if you did a TV series?' And I said, 'Hey, sure.' I liked it too, I thought it was very well-intentioned. I was not involved at all in production. My partner Richard at the time was leaning more towards television, and I thought if it's in syndication and if we have a considerable amount of freedom, which we wound up getting contractually, it would be fun to do this. Initially, we had a wonderful story editor called Tom Allen, who used to be a writer for The Voice, who unfortunately passed away. I think that the first batch of shows was the best and it went downhill from there.

"I wrote the pilot, and I think I wrote three or four of the other episodes, which was really fun. It was like short story writing. A couple of them were actually based on stories that were bought, but a couple of them were originals. I was able to take a couple of ideas that I had that I couldn't figure out how to make them weighty enough for a feature, and was able to bang them out and have fun with them. To me, that's what it was. And I think Tom and the production team and a couple of the young directors in the early couple of seasons, really did a human job with it. Basically it was Tom Allen that kept the stories on track and really had a story focus. I liked that. So it was fun. I feel pretty good about most of the Darkside."

Was Tales from the Dark Side: The Movie just stories that were left over from the TV series?
"I don't even know, frankly. The one that I wrote? Um, yes! Again, it was very frustrating for me. I should say that there's an underside to this. I wound up really angry over the way they decided to produce this. I wanted to do it in Pittsburgh, try to really just do a classier job with the whole thing. That's why I ended up not being at all involved in the production of it. By the time the second year came along, I was pretty frustrated with it. I didn't want the movie to happen; I was obligated to do it under my contract with the company. I'll say again: you never mind sitting and writing something - it's always like stroking yourself! That part of it's fine, but I wound up being unhappy with the whole situation. Not with the show. I really think that particularly the first twenty, or whatever that first batch was, were pretty good."

Was that series, like Creepshow, influenced by your interest in EC comics?
"I guess, yeah. I guess everything was. I just think that had we had a little more wherewithal - Tales from the Darkside came out and hit with Tales from the Crypt; that had the clout and a little more class - that we might have been more successful with it. And the same thing with Creepshow. Had they spent the extra 500 grand or whatever, and had we got one of the better artists instead of Jack Kamen, little frustrations like that."

Which of your movies are you completely happy with?
"The only one that I'm almost completely happy with is Martin. The only thing that bothers me is that there was a longer cut and I wanted it released in black and white. Unfortunately I made the typical mistake of believing the distributor when he said"'You know what? What does it hurt to shoot a colour negative? And we can print in black and white and rebuild it with contrasts.' So we went ahead and did that. We had originally printed it in black and white and had a print of a cut that I thought was just much, much better. So I'm just slightly frustrated with it. Understand this was 275 grand and I think that the entire cast and crew combined numbered about 15 or 16 people. Yet, we were able to make, because everybody was pulling in the same direction, we really were pursuing the same goal. And it's the only film that I think I was able to make 85% of the shots that I actually wanted to make. That never happened again. So I really think the best sequence I've ever done is the sequence where he comes after a housewife and finds her with a guy and chases her round the house. It's the only sequence that I think really came out the way I had it in my head, the way I had it boarded, completely."

Why do things differ in production from the storyboards? Do you get a better idea, or are you constrained by time or money?
"All of the above! Wait a minute, you forgot: 'Here's the scene where Steve comes out of a door and I need him in the foreground of this shot. Oh shit, I didn't know he was here. I didn't bring his jacket. Well, can we wait ten minutes? No, we can't.' If you can imagine all the pieces that have to fall into place to make a shot, unless you're doing it like Martin and everything says: 'Well let's shoot something else instead.' Plus all the actors are there. 'Hey, let's do your shots instead.' And no-one cares, and you don't have call sheets.

"You never get that flexibility back until you're up at a hundred million bucks and you're James Cameron and you can say, 'Okay, if we can't do the shot now we'll do it next week.' That's really it. It's extraordinary that things even come out close. And the only times that they do is either on very small films or very very big films."

And you're trapped in the middle at the moment?
"Um, yes!"

interview: Coz Greenop

$
0
0
This email interview with Coz Greenop, director of terrific ghost story Wandering Rose, was conducted in January 2015.

What was your aim with Wandering Rose and to what extent do you think the finished film achieves that?
"For me Wandering Rose was always going to be my calling card to get the attention of producers and financiers. I never imagined it would be having a worldwide release on VOD and DVD let alone even sell it. It was always my intention to make something I could show people and also just for me to see if I could achieve making a feature. So many people advised me against making a feature and rather just making a short film due to the budget I had for the film. So for me just to have completed a feature film was always my biggest goal. Everything after that has been a bonus. I never imagined the film would be sold let alone win awards and be received so well."

To what extent did you intend the ‘haunting’ to be supernatural or psychological or ambiguous?
"I always wanted the film to be ambiguous. I am a big fan of Korean horror films. They don’t spell it out for an audience. They make you think about what’s going on. I always wanted the audience to come up with their own interpretation of what the Figure was in Wandering Rose. I also think that what ever the audience make of it, it works. The film is more about the downfall of a girl’s mental state so it can really be interpreted either way. I like the fact that it can shock people but also it has a much deeper meaning rather than being there purely for scares."

How important are the locations – and the way they are photographed - to the movie?
"The whole reason we shot in the Scottish Highlands was because of the haunting landscapes. I love the fact that the couple are in the vast Cairngorm mountains and yet feel so enclosed in the camper van. The mountains almost become a prison, they are trapped, isolated with no escape. The atmospheric landscape also helps us with Rose’s mental state. She feels so trapped. The reason we spent a third of our budget on aerial shots is because I wanted to show the landscape off. The Cairngorms are so stunning I had to show that in the best possible way."

How has Wandering Rose been received so far by audiences and critics?
"So far we have had mainly positive reviews from critics. I think the critics that get what we were trying to achieve have really got on board with the film but because there aren’t as many jump scares and the film is quite ambiguous some critics just haven’t got what we were trying to do which is fair enough as I know our film isn’t going to attract an audience who just want gore and scares, but we were never trying to achieve that. I think our film is trying to do more than that. To be put in UK Horror Scene top films of 2014 was a massive honor. We never could have imagined that we would get that kind of response so, so far we have been really blessed with the feedback we have had."

I must admit that my heart sank when I saw the title/sleeve for the American release. What are your thoughts on them?
"When I first heard that the name of the film had been changed to Demon Baby for American audiences I was a little taken back. Not really knowing anything really about the selling of a film and that side of the industry I was quite shocked but I also know that I have to put faith in the distribution company. At the end of the day as a storyteller I want as many people to see my film as possible and if this title appeals to more people then I can’t really complain. The title isn’t as subtle and is very much in your face but if it makes people buy the DVD then its something I can get over. ‘A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet,’ I keep telling myself and hopefully people will look past the title. It will always be Wandering Rose to me and the cast and crew. Hopefully with my next film I will be able to have more of a say in the title."

What are you working on next?
"I’m currently attached to direct a WW2 feature shot in Norway this Summer called The Border Guide and I’m also on a fourth draft of another psychological horror film called The Passing Beacon  that I’m seeking finance for and wanting to shoot early 2016."

The Haunting of Radcliffe House

$
0
0
Director: Nick Willing
Writer: Nick Willing
Producer: Michele Camarda
Cast: Olivia Williams, Matthew Modine, Antonia Clarke
Country: UK
Year of release: 2014
Reviewed from: TV screening

The Haunting of Radcliffe House is a curious film with an interesting history, and no-one else seems bothered about reviewing it so I guess it’s up to Muggins here. The film has its good points and its bad points. It’s not as awful as one might suppose from reading user reviews on the IMDB but nor is it as good as it could (or should) have been.

Olivia Williams (X-Men 3, Last Days on Mars) and token Yank Matthew Modine are Meg and Alec, a London couple who move into a vast, empty mansion on the Yorkshire moors.  Meg has got the job of restoring this pile for an American client who has recently purchased it. Alec is an artist whose style mostly involves welding square lumps of metal together; he can use part of the building as a workshop. Also moving in are teenage daughter Penny (Antonia Clarke: The Thirteenth Tale) and not-quite-teen son Harper (Adam Thomas Wright: The Awakening).

Locals believe the house to be haunted, or cursed, or something. Local builder Donnelly (Jonathan Jaynes) agrees to help Meg with the fixer-upping but leaves when they discover an occult painting on the floor of a curious, slightly pyramidal room somewhere up on the top floor.

Fairly swiftly, spooky stuff starts happening. Penny receives a genuinely frightening visit from a ghost woman who runs towards her as the girl lies in bed, frozen with fear. Alec cuts himself on a nail and a drop of his blood is absorbed by the house. He starts making artistic sketches of a woman who may or may not be supposed to be Meg, and becomes increasingly obsessed with the artistic possibilities of blood. A ‘ghost whisperer’ (Sightseers’ Steve Oram) contacted online by Penny visits briefly and has psychic flashbacks to an accident involving a garden ornament that was broken but has been restored to its former location.

The good thing about The Haunting of Radcliffe House is that many of the scary bits are genuinely scary. Unlike the mediocre, over-rated Woman in Black (which seems to have kickstarted a renaissance in British ghost films) this does not rely on cheap cat scares. The ghost here is much more frightening than Hammer’s because it doesn’t just lunge screaming at the camera on a regular basis.

Where the film falls down however – and it’s a big tumble – is that there is no logic or coherence to any of the supernatural shenanigans on display. It’s like writer-director Nick Willing just got carried away when writing the script – ooh, and then this scary thing happens, then this – quite forgetting that he was supposed to be crafting a coherent narrative. In a way, that actually helps because each new scare is unexpected and, in its novelty, adds another layer of fright. Something you don’t get if each new scare is the same as the last. But that is offset by the completely random nature of what we see. In the third act for example, Penny gets trapped in a network of previously unmentioned cellars and is stalked by something human running fast on all fours, which is never explained. A little later, Penny and Harper find themselves out on the moors where they come across an artist’s easel with a painting of them, dressed exactly as they currently are. That’s spooky, I’ll grant you, but it doesn’t relate to anything before or after.

The activities of a ghost in a ghost story need to serve a purpose: a warning, or a cry for help, or a lamentation.  The underlying story here is that the owner of Radcliffe House in the mid-19th century was an artist who murdered his wife, and was also a ‘Rosicrucian’ (though quite what that means in this context is neither explored nor explained). But there also seems to have been an accidental death of someone else falling from an upstairs window onto the garden ornament. The ghost of this person turns up in dayight although it only later becomes clear to us and Meg that this was indeed a Victorian ghost, despite wearing modern clothes.

There’s just no clear story here. The ghost’s activities and motivation are all over the place. There’s some talk of transferral of souls and Alec is clearly possessed by something. I think he is under the spell of the former owner (presumably as a result of that minor accident with a nail) and is trying to somehow transfer his dead wife’s soul into Meg. But why would he want to do that if he killed her in the first place? And where does this other ghost fit into it all? The whole thing is just a random grab-bag of (admittedly effective) spookiness masquerading as a (thoroughly unsatisfying) story.

Matters are not helped by some careless lack of attention to detail. At one point a phone in a room  full of clutter starts ringing, although we know that the engineer who was supposed to reconnect the phone didn’t turn up. Spooky. Problem is: the phone is very clearly a 1980s Trimphone which is completely out of context with the other junk. More to the point, the foley artist on this film is presumably not old enough to remember Trimphones and their very, very distinctive sound so has added a standard ‘telephone ring’ sound effect. I don’t care if the caller is some spirit using an unplugged phone: either use a Trimphone sound or a pre-1980s phone prop. (While I’m being pedantic, there’s a scene where Harper and Jenny play Cluedo, which you can’t actually do with just two people.)

Eventually Meg is left lying on the painting underneath a weird, heavy, hanging metal thing that drips blood onto her. There is no explanation or context for this metal thing and, apart from hoping that it won’t pull its rusty bracket from the ceiling and squish the woman’s head, there’s very little reason to feel any concern, empathy or involvement in this scene.

And then there’s the ‘twist’ ending of the film. This is so bad, so unnecessary, so clichéed, so ineptly, unsubtly handled, and generally so stupid that it completely ruins the whole movie, hammering the final nail into something which up to then had been merely ‘not very good’.

The motive force behind The Haunting of Radcliffe House were married couple writer-director Nick Willing and producer Michele Camarda, whose previous BHR entry was 2002 misfire Doctor Sleep aka Hypnotic aka Close Your Eyes. Willing has also directed several mini-series for Hallmark, the two head honchos of which, Robert Halmi Sr and Jr, are credited here as executive producers. But this is a long way from a lavish Hallmark production, being principally funded by Screen Yorkshire. Presumably that funding body was keen to include as many establishing shots of tourist-friendly moorland as possible, and to overlook the film’s underlying message which is: stay away from Yorkshire, our ghosts will try to kill you and your children.

The film was shot in early 2014 under the half-hearted and pointless title Altar. There are a couple of mentions of an altar but there isn’t actually an altar in the film, unless that term refers to the circular floor painting, which isn’t any sort of altar that I would recognise. This was supposedly made with expectation of a theatrical release, but only in the sense that every film bullshits that line. Realistically, Altar was always going to be a straight-to-DVD picture – and hey, there’s no sin in that. But what actually happened was that Channel 5 bought the UK rights, improved the title considerably by changing it to The Haunting of Radcliffe House, and screened the film on terrestrial TV a couple of days after Christmas 2014.

In September that year a Kickstarter campaign was launched, presumably by Willing and Camarda, to raise $40,000 to pay for the film (as Altar) to get a theatrical release in the States. Despite reaching its target in under two months, it’s not clear what that money will pay for because at time of writing (mid-January 2015) the film was still listed on Amazon for a US DVD release in mid-Feb (through a distributor called Cinedigm, and with a truly abysmal sleeve). In any case, even if the film does get to play US theatres I can't see it getting a better response from audiences than it got on British TV.

Willing and Camarda don’t seem to have much luck with distribution. Thirteen years on, Doctor Sleep remains solidly unreleased in the UK under any of its varied titles, Amazon.co.uk offering only American, German and Danish discs. More to the point, one can’t help thinking that if savvy, successful film businessmen like Halmi pere et fils don’t think that a movie is worth backing as a theatrical release, then it’s probably not a sound investment on the part of crowdfunders, most of whom are presumably just really big fans of Modine or Williams.

Reading through the various comments on the IMDB of those who watched Radcliffe House over Christmas, there are numerous accusations of plagiarism: everything from The Shining to The Woman in Black (hey, I just got it: 'Radcliffe' House...) to Hellraiser. Truth be told, I don’t believe Willing set out to deliberately ape well-known horror movies, rather I suspect this is just a side effect of the film’s lack of originality. In randomly bolting together a whole pile of horror film clichés, devoid of the narrative context that might justify them, he has created an effective ‘greatest hits’ package of the genre. And it is natural that in making individual comparisons, the original and/or best known examples of each idea will spring to mind. So yes, a father takes his family to a remote building and then goes nuts but I don’t think Willing watched The Shining and went, “Yes, that’s what I’ll do.” More likely his thought process was: “Lots of horror films feature someone going nuts and threatening their family, often in an isolated setting – that will do me.”

One comparison that is worthy of note – and must be deliberate - is that the film’s basic premise is apparently very similar to ‘The Prayer Tree’, the two-part story which constituted Season 4 of BBC paranormal series Sea of Souls. “When a young couple, Karen and Ian O'Rourke, move into an old home they discover unique symbols painted on the walls. When they post the image on the Internet, Dr. Douglas Monaghan believes they have found the Tree of Life, a symbol of the Order of the Golden Dawn, a 19th century spiritualist group.” - is how the IMDB sums that up.

‘The Prayer Tree’ was written, like most Sea of Souls episodes, by David Kane. Nick Willing directed two episodes in the first season of that series, and Kane wrote the screenplay for Willing’s 2006 Anglo-Canadian thriller The River King. According to the IMDB he also gets a ‘thank you’ on Doctor Sleep. So clearly there is some connection there, but what it is I couldn’t say (and, truth be told, don’t really care).

Perhaps if Kane had written the script for Altar the film might have actually had a plot that made sense. As it is, Willing’s direction is pretty good and he uses a lot of different effects to create his spooky atmosphere, plus the cast are generally fine with particularly impressive performances from Clarke and Knight, but none of this can save the film from its fundamental problem which is simply incoherence and randomness. Things are just thrown into the mix for no reason and to no effect.

For example, at one point Meg discovers that her client didn’t actually buy the house but inherited it (from a previously unknown 19th century relative who had entrusted it to some solicitors). But that has no bearing at all on the (for want of a better word) plot. In fact it adds a layer of confusion because it implies the building has been empty for 170 years, which it plainly hasn’t. And if it had been empty since then, what was a 1980s Trimphone doing there? In fact what was any sort of telephone doing there?

Ironically, one of the top-level perks offered as part of the aforementioned Kickstarter campaign was that Nick Willing was, ahem, willing to provide a professional critique of a screenplay written by the donor. Which sounds good except, Jesus, did no-one provide a critique of this screenplay? Would you trust the critical judgement of someone who thought this abstract bunch of disconnected ideas was ready to be filmed? That’s like a chef who has served up a cold, undercooked meal offering his customers cookery lessons.

Anyway, other cast and crew round-up. There’s Stephen Chance who was the vampiric quizmaster in Kill Keith, Richard Dillane who played Werner Von Braun in 2005 drama-doc Space Race, and David J Peel who had a bit part in Stalled. The music is by Simon Boswell who scored much of Willing’s other work, as well as some crap like Octane and Incubus (plus, famously, some Argento stuff). Top Danish DP Jan Richter-Friis (Wire in the Blood, Powers) lit the film, which was cut by editor David Freeman (The Full Monty). Production designer John Ellis mostly works on Springwatch and Autumnwatch, not the sort of shows you would expect to use a production designer. John Lindlar (White Settlers) designed the costumes; visual effects were supervised by Ben Ashmore (Love Bite, The Harry Hill Movie). A bunch of talented people doing their best, I have no doubt, but as so often happens, the whole thing rests on the script - which, by any standards, is just a jumble of unconnected ideas.  And thus the whole edifice crumbles.

Without some structure and some sense of why – why is this particular spooky thing happening to this person at this time? – a ghost story stops being a ghost story and becomes simply a ghost train. And that’s what we’ve got here. Which is a shame.

At time of writing a British disc from RLJ Entertainment (as The Haunting of...) is listed on Amazon for release in December 2015. Presumably the twelve-month delay indicates that Channel 5 have the rights for a year in case they want to repeat this. It's not because the film, which takes place in the summer, has any connection with Christmas.

MJS rating: C

Stag Hunt

$
0
0
Director: James Shanks
Writers: James Shanks, Neil Craske
Producer: Neil Craske
Cast: Mackenzie Astin, Neil Cole, Donald Morrison, Chris Rogers
Country: UK
Year of release: 2015
Reviewed from: online screener

Way back in the mid-1990s I travelled, with my SFX Staff Writer hat on, down to Shepperton. Not to visit the film studios but to spend some time in a pokey recording studio above a hairdresser where I bore witness to a possibly unique event. The dubbing, in Britain, by British actors, of a Japanese kaiju movie.

Traditionally, Godzilla movies and other kaiju eiga were dubbed into English in Japan by a bunch of westerners, most of them just part-time actors who already had proper jobs but knew someone at Toho or Toei. These ‘international versions’ were trade-screened and shown at festivals, but often the US distributor would want more professional, American-sounding voices and record their own dubs. So there was often a difference between the British and American release of a film: we got the international version, they did their own.

Flash forward a considerable number of years to the first really, really good kaiju eiga for ages, the film that in many ways revitalised the genre: Shusuke Kaneko’s Gamera: Guardian of the Universe. This did great stuff at festivals – deservedly so – and Manga Video decided they would take a punt and release it into UK cinemas ahead of its video release, the first theatrical outing for a giant Japanese monster on these shores in 20 years (we never got any of the 1980s/1990s Godzilla pictures). But Manga (who mostly released anime but put out a few live action titles like Zeram) decided that they wanted a different dub, a British dub. And that was why I was in Shepperton on that sunny afternoon.

While there, I was shown some footage of an unfinished British horror film which the dubbing director was also working on. It featured Brian Blessed and Julie T Wallace and looked amazing. Remember: this was the mid-1990s. There was, like, nothing getting made in this country. At all.

For years afterwards I remembered seeing that footage. But I couldn’t remember the title, or the director’s name, and it wasn’t on the IMDB, and I had lost contact with the guy who had arranged the trip to the dubbing session. But I knew that, long before British horror was reborn in the 20th century, there had been a supernatural horror film – certainly started, possibly finished – with Brian Blessed and Julie T Wallace.

(I also knew that Gamera: Guardian of the Universe had had a UK theatrical release with a different soundtrack to the American version. Which few other people knew because the release was a flop. Manga decided to aim for the same weekend in July as The Lost World: Jurassic Park, confidant that Gamera could be the second-highest opener because every other distributor was keeping well away from that tentpole release. In the end, I’m not sure anyone actually watched the film except me and Kim Newman, and we both got in for free.)

Anyway, eventually that mysterious lost British horror film surfaced - in the mid-naughties ten years after it was made - on both sides of the Atlantic. It turned out to be called The Devil’s Harvest, although the UK distributor decided that it would sell better as Don’t Go in the Attic. Truth be told, it’s not a bad little film. It has its good points and its bad points but, as I observed in one of my favourite sentences in Urban Terrors: “any film which starts with Brian Blessed shouting in Latin can’t be all bad.” In the wake of Urban Terrors I kept in touch with the director, James Shanks, and now here comes his long-awaited second feature, Stag Hunt.

And here, after that little nostalgic ramble, comes the long-awaited review.

Stag Hunt slots into the micro-genre of ‘British horror movies about stag weekends’ which also includes Simon Cathcart’s Stag Knight and Andrew Jones’ Stag Night of the Dead. It also falls into the ‘male bonding out of town’ subgenre where examples would include Doghouse, The Scar Crow and Bicycle Day. Finally, one could include this in a list of rural horrors set in Britain but away from civilisation.

The set-up is this: likeable American ex-pat Spencer (Mackenzie Astin) is about to get hitched so has headed to Dartmoor for a weekend of hiking, drinking and larks with his two flatmates: immature English knobhead Pete (Neil Cole) and taciturn, practical Scot Jason (Donald Morrison). Pete is Spencer’s fiancee’s ex. Also along for the trip is her unfit, unprepared brother Andy (Chris Rogers).

Funny things, stag nights. I don’t think I had one and I’m not even sure I’ve ever been on one, although in my youth I did go on a number of hen nights which were very enjoyable (but that’s another story). I’m all for a final piss-up with one’s chums but of all the places and activities available – Brighton, Blackpool, Prague, paintball, shooting zombies with ray guns – hiking on Dartmoor seems to be a very odd choice indeed. Still, off they go.

As well as being a cracking rural horror-thriller, Stag Hunt is very funny. And its strength in this regard is that it is in no way a spoof, or wacky. The very best horror-comedy hybrids – like Shaun of the Dead or An American Werewolf in London– manage to somehow combine the two genres without lessening either. In either of those examples, you could remove the comedy and still have a very effective horror film. Or indeed you could remove the horror and have a very effective comedy. Stag Hunt manages this also. All the humour comes from believable situations and reactions and dialogue, not from artificially injected comedy ideas.

There’s a certain amount of larking about, some joshing between mates (which on occasion goes too far: there is no love lost between Pete and Andy) and some dry wit. It’s always a pleasure to watch films where the characters are at least reasonably intelligent. Yes, they like a beer and a joke and even the odd spliff. Yes, Pete isn’t nearly as funny as he thinks he is. But these are four reasonable, intelligent blokes that you would be happy to share a pint with. They actually have conversations about things – and you would be amazed how many horror films cannot tick that really simple box.

If there’s a problem here, it’s the same one that I identified when reviewing The Apostate, which is that though the film is very good it takes a long time to get going. About half an hour into this 93-minute feature comes the first clue that there might be something else out on the moors. And then it’s back to more hiking and joshing so that we’re only just short of the midpoint when the action kicks in.

That said, when it does kick in, it kicks in with a size 14 boot and doesn’t let up. There is indeed something else out on the moors. Something large and ferocious (and, since you’re wondering, non-supernatural – it’s not a werewolf). How our four likely lads deal with this threat in their isolated situation forms the second half of the film. And though there are still some wonderful moments of humour, the threat is never presented as anything less than potentially deadly. As they struggle to avoid it, then stand up to it, then fight back, the foursome realise things about themselves. Not great revelations, just real character development. Fine writing, delivered through fine performances. Top stuff.

In a film like this, casting is key and Jim Shanks has picked a quartet of actors who exhibit real on-screen chemistry together. You can believe they’re mates, you can believe that Pete and Andy don’t get on, you can believe they’d spend a stag weekend hiking across Dartmoor (though that still seems a freaking pointless thing to do if you ask me). Aside from a few people seen briefly in a pub near the start, there are no other characters. In a lovely touch the barmaid is Julie T Wallace, reprising her character from The Devil’s Harvest.

Mackenzie Astin may not have obvious 'Token Yank' name value but that’s fine because that’s not why he was cast. What he does have is a filmography stretching back to the 1980s when he was a child actor in an I Dream of Jeannie reunion telemovie and a Facts of Life spin-off. As an adult he has been in episodes of The Outer Limits, Lost, House, My Name is Earl, Grey’s Anatomy, NCIS and Bones, not to mention the US versions of Shameless and Prime Suspect. Despite his many credits, Astin hasn’t previously appeared in a horror film, if we exclude trying-too-hard comedy short Zombeo and Juliecula. But if there’s one credit that will haunt the poor man forever, I fear it’s a starring role in a theatrically released feature that he made in his teens. Have you ever had the misfortune to see The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? Yes, that was Mackenzie Astin as Dodger, the boy who befriends them. Wow.

Moving on, Neil Cole’s previous horror credit was Howl, not the Paul Hyett movie but a 2013 short directed by Jamie Sims. As well as acting, he does stand-up and has a bunch of TV presenting credits including loads of motorsport commentaries. Chris Rogers has done a bit of film and TV but mostly stage including a fair amount of Shakespeare. Donald Morrison was in vampire web-series Judas Goat.

Jim co-wrote the script with his mate Neil Craske, who was co-producer (among other credits) on Devil’s Harvest and served as producer here. Jim also DPed, Neil also edited (and was sound designer). The suitably gruesome and realistic make-up effects are the work of Joe Fathers, director of classic documentary A History of Swanscombe, and their after-effects in an epilogue are courtesy of Alexandra Ellison. Visual effects are credited to Chris Harvey John of Harvey House Films. The beast itself, of which we sensibly see very, very little, was built by Animated Extras, an effects house whose previous BHR credits include Piggy, Dorian Gray, Shaun of the Dead and It’s a Wonderful Afterlife, plus lots of high profile, big budget stuff. The soundtrack is a mixture of music by Edward Bradshaw (13Hrs) and songs by Mark Underwood (who is also an actor and had a bit part in Truth or Dare).

Shot over two weeks in October 2011 (the copyright date is 2013, first screeners went out early 2015), Stag Hunt came in at under £20,000 of which about a quarter went on the barely glimpsed (but vital) animal antagonist. The photography shows off Dartmoor very well, as it happens, and the sound mix is good although the ADR betrays itself in a few sequences clearly shot in very windy locations.

It’s a real delight to finally have another film from James Shanks. Stag Hunt is a finely judged character comedy which morphs skilfully into a tense horror-thriller without ever losing its comic touch. Good work all round.

MJS rating: A-

Goblin?

$
0
0
Director: Christian James
Writer: Matt Brothers
Producer: Emma Biggins
Cast: Holliday Grainger, David Oakes
Country: UK
Year of release: 2014
Reviewed from: Distrify (see end of review)

Goblin? (with a question mark in the title) is a fun little seven-minute short directed by Christian James of Freak Out and Stalled fame, and produced by Emma Biggins (The Harsh Light of Day). It premiered at Frightfest 2014 before being put onto Distrify, from where all profits go to the splendid folks at the British Lung Foundation and their essential work into assorted respiratory diseases.

Holliday Grainger (Where the Heart Is, Johnny and the Bomb, Demons) is Liz, a woman who comes home from work to find her house apparently ransacked. The place is a tip, items are strew everywhere, furniture is damaged, there are some curious scratches on the walls. Cautiously, she creeps upstairs calling for her (unemployed, stay-at-home) boyfriend Harry (David Oakes: Truth or Dare, The Borgias). She finds him in the bedroom where he assures her that he has done battle with a goblin and has managed to lock it in the wardrobe. The script by Matt Brothers (whose various shorts include 2011 quickie Absence, also directed by Christian James) then becomes a sparkling slice of dialogue as the two proceed to argue over the existence, or otherwise, of said goblin. Hence the question mark.

Structurally, this is a Monty Python sketch, which is not to say that this is a Pythonesque comedy. Though it is very funny. What I mean is that the classic Python set-up is someone sensible arguing with someone else over a subject which should really be beyond argument. The parrot is obviously dead. You obviously don’t need a licence for a pet fish. The cheese shop obviously has no cheese in it. And, by the same token, there clearly isn’t a goblin in the wardrobe.

But Liz is prepared to argue with Harry, justifying her dismissal of his claim, rather than actually just dismissing it. It's a cracking performance from both actors. The ending is, shall we say, not unexpected but none the worse for that.

The other thing that really impresses about this short film is the set dressing. Both floors of the house used for the location have been thoroughly (albeit artistically) trashed. It actually takes a great deal of effort to make somewhere look like it’s been messed up: the impression of chaos is hard to create (without real chaos – and even then it often looks fake). So kudos to production designer Erik Rehl (The Machine) and art director Alex Woodward (Doctor Who).

An all-star crew of BHR names includes cinematography by Luke Bryant (UFO, Allies, Writers Retreat,Kill Keith), editing by Mark Gilleece (Stalled), make-up by Lauren Gregory (Stalled, Night Surf), VFX by Thomas Saville (Small Town Folk, Mutant Chronicles, Territory), music by Adam Langston (Dead Wood, The First Zombie) and sound recording by Glen Yard (Freak Out, The Witches Hammer, Bordello Death Tales, Zombie Resurrection, K-Shop and more). Harsh Light of Day director Oliver Milburn is tucked in at the tail end of the credits as colourist.

Goblin? was shot in a single day in July 2013 in producer Emma's own house which presumably generally looks a bit tidier than it does here. Now, for just a quid, which goes to an important medical charity, you can watch it on Distrify, Seven minutes well spent.

MJS Rating: A-

Surviving Evil

$
0
0
Director: Terence Daw
Writer: Terence Daw
Producers: Malcolm Kohll, David Pupkewitz
Cast: Billy Zane, Natalie Mendoza, Christina Cole
Country: UK/South Africa
Year of release: 2009
Reviewed from: screener DVD

Surviving Evil may be the first horror film directed by someone who has previously helmed episodes of Heartbeat. Unfortunately, the result is what you might expect. The first hour or so, which is all lightweight character drama and soap opera relationships, is competently directed and quite interesting - but when it eventually gets round to the horror stuff it just falls apart, losing all the interest it may have built up amongst its audience.

Billy Zane (Titanic, Bloodrayne etc. - you know who Billy Zane is) stars as Seb Beazly, a professional adventurer filming the 183rd edition of his TV series Surviving the Wilderness on a remote island in the Philippines. With him are his producer/director Rachel (Louise Barnes: Borderline), cameraman Dex (Colin Moss: Cryptid) and sound recordist Phoebe (Christina Cole: bus driver Candy in Doghouse). The soap angle is that Dex and Rachel were once an item and she still carries a torch which flares up when she sees him coming on (entirely reasonably) to hot tropical babe Cecilia, one of two Filipinos in the party. (Cecilia is played by Natalie Mendoza, from The Descent, who does actually have Filipino parents.)

The last member of this sextette is Joey (Joel Torre, an honest to God Filipino character actor whose horror credits include Yanggaw, Sapi and Sa Ilalim ng Cogon) who doubles as guide and armed guard and is the only person to have visited this island before. Cecilia fills in as assistant guide and general PA. The boatman who takes them to the island refuses to stay but will return in six days. The group have two satellite phones which allow them intermittent contact with ‘base’.

There is one village on this island which is presumably the one we saw in a prologue being attacked by something savage while a woman gave birth during a thunderstorm. When Joey goes to make contact with the villagers he finds the place deserted, something which he keeps secret from the others although there is no indication of how he explains this lack of communication as presumably they were expecting something to come from his visit.

A few odd things happen. Phoebe thinks she sees a sad old woman standing still near the camp who has disappeared when she looks again. Playing back footage, Dex notices what appears to be a human figure climbing a tree in the background of one shot but dismisses it as it doesn’t spoil the shot. And a blackened skeletal hand falls from a tree onto Rachel while she is trying to take a dump in the woods.

All the rotting remains in this film are black and skeletal, looking like they have been burned rather than rotted away, but still with splashes of unnaturally bright red blood. These include several bodies in the village and a dead baby which lands in Phoebe’s lap.

Anyway, let’s get to the meat. The big selling point of this film, at least as far as I’m concerned. Joey and Cecilia become convinced that the island is home to an aswang.

An aswang, folks! This is an honest-to-God British aswang film! Who would ever have thought such a thing possible?

Actually, it’s not really a British film except for tax purposes. It was shot entirely in Durban - in May 2008 - with some post-production in the USA and the Philippines (which, with the possible exception of some stock jungle footage, is the closest the film ever gets to Manila). But the opening titles proclaim Surviving Evil to be ‘A UK/South Africa co-production’ and so it is. Even though the only recognisable name among 13(!) executive producers is American B-movie legend Chuck Fries.

But it is at least a proper aswang film. Just about.

One of the things that distinguishes the aswang among monsters is that it preys on pregnant woman - and guess who has just missed her period after a one-off drunken fumble with Seb? That’s right, it’s Phoebe.

Meanwhile Joey has his own subplot. He needs money because his wife is gravely ill and he has returned to the island, not just for the job as guide, but because he knows the location of a derelict World War 2 outpost constructed during the Japanese occupation. And what do all stories that touch on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines revolve around? Got it in one!

Joey seems to have no clear evidence that there is gold in the outpost but he also seems fairly sure it is there. He has a hand-drawn cloth map but there’s no indication of where he got it; he may even have drawn it himself on his last visit. But he also tells Cecilia, when she follows him to the outpost, that she can return to camp by just heading due south. So, you know, the map’s not really necessary.

It is while Joey is deep underground, in a cavernous vault beneath this jungle outpost, that we get our first clear look at the aswangs. For there are several. And it honestly is one of the most cack-handed monster reveals I’ve ever seen. A couple of them just appear and start threatening Cecilia but there’s no build-up, no follow-through, no surprise. It looks like it’s been cut together as a best-we-can-do job after a bunch of shots either weren’t filmed or got screwed up.

But we do at last get to see some aswangs - and what a disappointment. Your aswang is a sort of Filipino vampire thing, a mysterious, fantastical creature of the night, it’s super-long tongue ready to suck the life from any unborn foetus. It’s weird and terrifying. These aswangs are basically pitch-black, ferocious, animalistic men, growling and jumping around and holding their clawed hands up in a scary fashion. Grrrr! I’m an aswang! I’m sorry but they’re about as scary as the Pathetic Sharks in Viz. They’re the Pathetic Aswangs.

According to Joey there are three things we must all know about aswangs, apart from them being so scary and dangerous and all. One is the whole pregnant women schtick, one is that they can’t go underground(?) - which leads to Dex suggesting they dig a trench to protect themselves but by that time they’ve got no spade, Phoebe is in hysterics and Seb is incapacitated after one of the aswangs bit him on the arm when he was up a tree trying to photograph a macaque.

The other thing is... they’re shape-shifters.

Which sounds great but, as might be expected by the more cynical viewers, this whole shape-shifting thing is largely irrelevant and not really featured to any great degree. There is one short sequence on the beach when a couple of aswangs are portrayed by a pair of alsatian dogs and there is the climax when a whole bunch of them suddenly sprout bat-wings and soar off like so many flying monkeys to their tree-top eyrie. That’s pretty much your lot.

I won’t spoil the film by describing who survives or how (or why) or the rather curious epilogue which is probably meant to be unsettling and unnerving but just comes across as unclear and undecided. I’ll just observe that the movie takes a very, very long time to get going and, when it does, it falls apart. A big disappointment.

Writer-director Terence Daw has a track record on some of British TV’s blandest and dullest series: Heartbeat, Emmerdale, The Bill. To be fair, the guy’s got to earn a living and not everyone can direct Doctor Who (and until that came back, there simply wasn’t anything interesting or exciting being made in the UK). But this lack of experience in the fantastique shows itself in Surviving Evil where, as mentioned, the character stuff is fine but the action-horror stuff just doesn’t work. Daw has also directed kids shows, arts shows, documentaries and a Ravi Shankar concert film.

His self-penned biography on IMDB mentions a whole bunch of feature scripts that he has written and sold. I actually feel quite sorry for the guy because he clearly had high hopes for Surviving Evil and maybe saw it as a route out of soap opera purgatory. Maybe he can still make it.

Among the small army of executive producer are several who worked on Book of Blood and/or Chemical Wedding. DP Mike Downie is one of South Africa’s most prolific cinematographers with credits ranging from Boer War documentaries to the Johannesburg version of Pop Idol, plus loads of feature films, shorts and TV (including season one of Ed Naha’s series The Adventures of Sinbad).

Tom Kane, who shares music credit with Colin Baldry, has a couple of interesting British horror shorts on his CV include E’gad Zombies! and a version of The Tell Tale Heart. Editor Adam Recht cut that weird 2006 BBC version of Dracula plus episodes of Bonekickers, Primeval, Hex and the Prisoner remake. Brendan Lonergan (Blood + Roses) designed the creatures.

Released theatrically in South Africa, Surviving Evil had a token UK theatrical release in one cinema in Manchester (probably a contractual requirement). It played successfully in the Philipines. But then it would, wouldn’t it.

I really, really wanted to enjoy Surviving Evil more than I did. It’s a British aswang film ferchrissake! But it didn’t grip me, it didn’t scare me and, while the characters are well-rounded and sympathetic, I wanted to come out of the cinema whistling the monsters. And I didn’t.

MJS rating: C

Review originally posted  29th March 2010

The Stone: No Soul Unturned

$
0
0
Director: Philip Gardiner
Writer: Philip Gardiner
Producer: Philip Gardiner, Nik Spencer
Cast: Andrew Gough, Craig Dalziel, Sarah Dunn
Country: UK
Year of release: 2011
Reviewed from: screener (Chemical Burn Entertainment)

Who is Philip Gardiner? Looking back as I write this in December 2011, we see that one year ago Gardiner had no films to his credit, apart from documentaries. Now he has four - four! - movies available on DVD in the States, with another three in various stages of production. The man is a factory. But who is he? From whence has he sprung?

To judge from his own publicity, Gardiner is a legend among wackos. Now, I don’t really know any wackos, don’t really want to make the acquaintance of any wackos, and thus can’t judge how much of Philip Gardiner’s website - amusingly called Gardiner’s World, although I suspect Americans won’t get the joke - accurately reflects his standing in this field and how much is hyperbole. What I do know is that the fellow is incredibly prolific. He has written a bunch of books and made about 20 non-fiction DVDs.

Well, I say ‘non-fiction’ but absolutely none of this stuff is true. Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs, crop circles, freemasons, alchemy, dowsing and conspiracy theories of all stripes - there really doesn’t seem to be a looney tune that Gardiner hasn’t covered. You have to ask yourself: how come he knows this much about what’s really going on in the world, that greater forces are trying to keep secret, yet he is still not either ruling us all or dead at the bottom of the Thames? It just doesn’t add up.

Let me make it clear: I have no objection to people believing in nonsense and if someone can make a bit of money out of it by flogging them DVDs and books, good luck to them. There are all sorts of quacks, frauds and charlatans out there but just watching some dodgy DVD documentary about dowsing won’t do you any harm. I mean, it won’t help you to find water with a bent twig either, but it won’t hurt anyone.

Gardiner has also piggybacked a few pop-culture/literary phenomena, producing documentaries on Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Ian Fleming, Harry Potter etc., all apparently taking a mystical approach to their subject. Eventually he decided to go the whole hog and make his own narrative feature films, but again with a mystical bent. The first of these to cross my path is Gardiner’s debut picture The Stone: No Soul Unturned (onscreen title is just The Stone), kindly sent over to me by Chemical Burn Entertainment, who are releasing all of Gardiner’s works.

‘Filmed on location at Annesley Hall in Nottinghamshire, England, this film is a British paranormal thriller in true Hammer fashion,‘ sayeth the sleeve blurb. ‘Featuring real British Druids filmed on location at sacred and ancient grounds and a host of best-selling authors and musicians.’

We-e-e-l-l-l-l... f’starters, Hammer never made any ‘paranormal thrillers’. The closest they got was their brace of Dennis Wheatley Satanism movies. Even if they had made paranormal thrillers, The Stone is utterly unlike anything even remotely connected with Hammer in style, tone, approach or subject matter. It’s a British horror movie, that’s the only connection.

As for the ‘real British Druids’ presumably that refers to the long prologue of some folk in white gowns doing something in long shot that we can’t see. It could be that, even filmed this distantly, keen wackos can identify particular mystic rites going on here but to the rest of us it looks like a bunch of folks in the woods standing in a circle then walking off somewhere and standing in a circle again. My guess is that they are burying the titular stone, only because somebody later finds a stone and I can’t think what else might be going on. Another problem with this prologue is that, Druidic fashions not having changed much in the past couple of thousand years, we can’t tell if this is present day or taking place in ancient times. Not that it matters as none of it has any connection with the rest of the film.

Actually, even before the Druids we have a sort of pre-prologue in which five talking heads pontificate very briefly on the mystical significance of stones. The only one I have heard of is Nick Pope, a man who has made a healthy career out of wacko-dom, but I assume the others are similarly well-known in this field.

Nick Pope, of course, is the bloke who worked for the Ministry of Defence, supposedly ‘investigating UFOs’. Civil Service friends of mine assure me that if the stuff he has written about his time at the MoD was even slightly true, he would have been hauled over the Official Secrets Act coals; most MoD staff aren’t even allowed to divulge what biscuits are in the tea-room. The reality of Pope’s ‘UFO investigations’, as I understand it, is this. It was his job to field complaints about MoD activities, so if some irate Welsh farmer rang up to complain that low-flying jets were frightening his sheep, Pope had to record the details. One of the questions was: what type of aircraft were involved? Harriers? Jaguars? Tornados?

“I don’t bloody know, boyo! All I know is they were too bloody low and too bloody loud and they scared my bloody flock, look you!”

So the type of ‘flying object’ involved was recorded as ‘unidentified’! All of which qualifies Nick Pope to pop up at the start of dodgy B-movies talking about mystical stones, apparently.

Eventually - e-ven-tu-al-ly - we get to the main narrative, about five people who turn up at an old Manor House to look for ghosts, or something. I had quite enjoyed the Druids prologue because it was so ridiculously long and drawn out that it actually became entertaining, but ‘long and drawn out’ would be a mild way of describing the rest of the film. Most directors would show us the car sweeping up the driveway to the house, then cut to the group climbing out and looking around. But Gardiner takes about seven or eight shots to even get the car parked! Every time you think it’s parked, the driver manoeuvres it again. It’s the funniest parking sequence I’ve ever seen.

It’s followed by lots of extended, slow shots of the quintet disembarking, and then yet another drawn out sequence, this time of them putting their tents up! Throughout the film, there is just sequence after sequence that is achingly, hilariously over-extended like this, all set to music (some of which, I’ll happily admit, is quite toe-tappingly enjoyable). The movie is like a series of pop videos with the occasional line of dialogue inbetween.

Incredibly, some of these wandering-about-doing-nothing sequences are speeded up! Not quite to Benny Hill velocity but still fast - and they still drag. Gardiner clearly has no concept of economy of storytelling, possibly because there’s no real story here. And it’s not like the film needs to stretch itself out to be feature length. The sleeve (and Gardiner’s website) both reckon this runs 75 minutes but it’s actually 98 (the Inaccurate Movie Database scores a double failure by claiming it’s 89/80). All of which is odd, because normally film running times go the other way, claiming 90 minutes for things that are barely 70. The Stone could easily be trimmed of 13 minutes of nothing happening, to match its sleeve info, without affecting the film at all. In fact, it would probably still drag.

The leader of this team is Aleister (Andrew Gough, who was executive producer along with Gardiner and Chemical Burn head honcho Warren Croyle), a tall, middle-aged Yank with a foppish haircut, a double-breasted, unbuttoned dark jacket and a long white shirt he doesn’t bother to tuck into his trousers. Basically, he looks like the forgotten sixth member of Spandau Ballet. Gummo Kemp.

Aleister is clearly in this ghost-hunting lark for the chicks (on his own website, Gough describes the character as “an occultist of dubious authenticity, who is addicted to women and whisky and passes himself off as an esoteric guru”) and has two emo bimbos hanging off his arms: blonde Charlotte (Sarah Dunn) and redhead Helena (Layla Randle-Conde). Then there’s Craig (Wes Dolan), who has a silk top hat, a Jack Sparrow-esque goatee and virtually no lines. I wasn’t sure whether or not he was meant to be a stoner. The fifth member of the group, and the only interesting or sympathetic one, is Tony (Craig Dalziel, a white rapper who is credited under his stage name of ‘Dap-C’). And the reason he is interesting and sympathetic is that he can’t stand Aleister.

Tony has a small video camera and some scenes are intercut with footage shot on this, nudging The Stone to the borders of the ‘found footage’ subgenre. We can tell from Tony’s slightly surly attitude and wearied participation in the various activities that his heart isn’t in this. But what is really great is that, in the camcorder shots, whenever the camera points towards Aleister, we can hear Tony muttering under his breath “Tosspot.”

Which is just ace, because Aleister quite clearly is a tosspot of the first water. Frustratingly, however, absolutely nothing is done with this. It promises some real character conflict and character development. Will Tony have to abandon his cynical, sceptical attitude and call on Aleister’s knowledge of the occult to save himself from some supernatural threat? Or will Aleister have to firmly grasp the nettle of reality, accept that his ghosts and demons are nonsense and call on clear-minded Tony for help?

Nope, nothing like that. There’s no conflict, no development and, the above notwithstanding, no real characters. We never find out why Tony is tagging along with the others when his heart very obviously isn’t in it. He doesn’t like Aleister, he’s not on for a shag with Helena or Charlotte (though we do later see Craig and Helena sharing a sleeping bag). What’s he doing there? Possibly even more interesting: why is writer-director Gardiner, whom one would expect to empathise most with mysticism-spouting Aleister, telling us through one of the other characters that the man is a tosspot?

None of this is answered or even hinted at. Instead we get loads more interminable musical sequences of people wandering around or holding hands in a circle. It’s abundantly unclear what these five people are here to do. They’re not ghost-hunting in any conventional sense, ie. you know, hunting for ghosts. Instead, there’s some babble about helping souls to pass over to the other side. So your guess is as good as mine. Maybe that makes sense to people who have seen one of Philip Gardiner’s documentaries or read one of his books.

An amateur photographer taking pictures of the buildings appears at the window at one point and informs them that Lord Byron used to live there, which seems to surprise them even though they claim to have done their research and, guys, it’s like in the first paragraph of the hall’s Wikipedia entry. We do actually see a short (but still over-long) sequence of two people in 18th century dress walking among the buildings and evidently this is supposed to be Byron and his bit of stuff, although the actor is utterly un-Byronic. I mean, it’s not like you have to try and work out what Byron looked like, the man is his own adjective. Since this sequence has no connection with anything else, it’s unclear whether it’s a historical flashback or whether these are ghosts.

The photographer is later killed, or something, in some other building. Some sort of ghost/demon/ghoul advances on him and the photographer shouts repeatedly “Get back! You’re not real!” So, um, why are you telling it to get back? It should also be stressed that, in all the years I’ve been reviewing crap films (and some good ones) on this site, the guy playing the photographer is probably among the five worst actors I have ever seen. And you know I’ve seen some bad, bad acting.

Some other bloke turns up, I think he’s a biker or something, and shouts obscenities at the gang. For some reason. He later seems to be the prime suspect when their tents are all mysteriously flattened while their backs are turned for about ten seconds. Later, when we see Craig and Helena together, he’s got maggots in his hair and she’s got a tarantula on her bum.

At night, when the others go to bed, Tony goes for a walk and see a bunch of folk performing some sort of Pagan/Wiccan rite inside the estate’s chapel, or something. Possibly Helena is involved in this but it’s not clear. On another occasion, Charlotte goes to use an outside (literally!) toilet but sees a strange young woman crying who then screams at her with a scary Exorcist-face before disappearing. Helena finds Charlotte weeping and clutching a doll but the sound on this scene is awful so we can’t make out most of the dialogue, which could possibly have been important.

So basically, as you can see, a bunch of weird and slightly spooky things happen but they don’t connect in any way and they are interspersed by more bloody music videos. Then for the last 30-40 minutes the weirdness and danger ramps up a level but, thanks to truly terrible camera-work, we can’t see what it is or, in some cases, who it’s happening to. This later stuff is shot day-for-night but it’s just way, way too dark (I’ve included here a couple of framegrabs from Gardiner’s website which demonstrate the problem). Tellingly, the credits list about 20 names as camera-operators - pretty much the entire cast and crew. In other words, the camera was held by whoever wasn’t on screen at the time and really, that’s no way to make a movie. There are four people you can’t do without on a movie set: a cinematographer, a sound recordist, a production designer and a first AD. If they all do their jobs well, you’ll have a good movie. Or at least, a good-looking version of a bad script.

Not that I believe The Stone had an actual script. Not a conventional screenplay as you or I understand the term. It couldn’t have. For starters, too many of the pages would just say: ‘They wander around some more. Then they do it again.’ And to maintain the one-minute-per-page rule those would need to be printed with lots of blank lines or in 144pt type. More to the point, where there is ‘dialogue’ it is obviously improvised. And I don’t mean improvised in a sort of Mike Leigh, let’s-workshop-the-characters, let’s-build-up-the-dialogue-through-improv way. I mean it really looks and sounds like the actors were just given vague direction and told to get on with it.

The problem is, not only are none of these people particularly good actors - in fact they seem to mostly be Gardiner’s mates from his previous day-job as a marketing executive - but also they have no characters. So for the most part they just keep saying the same thing over and over again until the director yells cut. It just look unutterably amateur. I’m sorry but it does.

So basically the first half of the movie is slow-moving and makes no sense but is at least entertainingly poor. For one brief, shining moment I thought we might have found a new Dicky Risk-all. But no, I think his crown is safe. And then, after the break, it still doesn’t make any sense but it’s too dark to see what’s going on anyway. I can’t even remember what happens in the end. I think they all die.

On slipping the screener disc into my machine it indicated a running time of 130 minutes, which scared me more than anything in the film. In actual fact, the last half hour or so turned out to be the extras: three actual music videos for songs featured on the soundtrack and some behind-the-scenes footage. Part of this is rather tedious ‘location scouting’ but part of it is stunts and other notable sequences - including Andrew Gough buried in the ground with the tarantula crawling on his face. Irrespective of anything else about the movie, props to him for that. You couldn’t pay me enough.

What strikes me most about this footage however, is how much fun Gardiner and his crew seem to be having. One might expect a bunch of solemn-faced, self-important no-laughs but actually it seems like they had a good time making the film and come across as a bunch of likeable, friendly folk larking about with cameras and boom mics. That sort of makes me feel a bit bad for trashing their movie now, but to be fair, it is awful and it would be remiss of me to say anything else.

Also included in the behind-the-scenes footage is the photo-shoot for the DVD sleeve. Two of those actresses are the ones who play Helena and Charlotte though they’re not in character. They never wear those costumes in the film nor do they pout provocatively like that. I honestly have no idea who the other bird is. Maybe she plays the scary-faced ghost-woman who frightens Charlotte on the loo. Maybe she’s Lord Byron’s bit of totty. Maybe she was a production assistant. Finally there is a trailer for Gardiner’s second feature film - Paranormal Haunting: Curse of the Blue Moon Inn - which looks in almost every way superior to The Stone.

Oh, and that black shiny thing which the three young ladies are fondling sensually on the sleeve is ‘the stone’. The team find it under some floorboards but its significance or effect is never explained. All I can tell you for certain is that no-one fondles it sensually in the movie. If you want to know more than that about the stone - or indeed The Stone - I fear you will have to ask either Philip Gardiner or Nick Pope.

MJS rating: D

Review originally posted 11th December 2011

Sentinels of Darkness

$
0
0
Director: Manos Kalaitzakis
Writers: Manos Kalaitzakis, Duncan Skinner, Barbara J Helverson
Producer: Manos Kalaitzakis
Cast: Eileen Daly, Charly Barber, Sandra Darnell
Country: UK/Greece
Year of release: 2002
Reviewed from: Greek DVD (with thanks to Kathryn de Roet)
Website: http://sentinels-of-darkness.50megs.com

Even by my standards, Sentinels of Darkness is a truly extraordinary film. Actually, it seems to be several truly extraordinary films bolted together. It’s an Anglo-Greek production only ever released in Greece and is therefore one of the rarest British horror films of recent years. I believe that there may only be two copies of this DVD in the UK: Eileen Daly has one and I’ve got the other.

Ah yes, dear old Eileen. She’s in her element here.

Sentinels of Darkness is technically an anthology film, divided into three segments, the titles of which are only revealed in the end credits, and with the third, longest segment also acting as the framing story for the other two.

Greek Adka (Michalis Iatropoulos) shows an old book to American Paige (Vicky Harris, who was in a Nico Mastorakis film called .com for Murder alongside - holy crap, is this real? - Nastassja Kinski, Huey Lewis, Roger Daltrey and Julie Strain!). Adka explains that the book and a few leaflets which say things like ‘Join our clan’ and ‘Conquer the future’ and ‘Enlist now’ are the only evidence left which prove the existence of someone called Velislava. Almost immediately we are into a 1940s flashback where Velislava (Eileen of course) is some sort of vampire high priestess and Sandra (Sandra Darnell: Dreamscape) is a rogue vampire of some sort. There is a very confusing sequence where Velislava seduces and beds a bloke in a Nazi-style uniform while Sandra apparently points a gun at them from some shrubbery. But when Sandra fires the gun she destroys some sort of statue instead which we have never seen before.

This highlights two problems about this first segment (which is entitled ‘Curse of a Deathless’). The first is that most scenes are shot against an unlit black background, using just such props or set dressing as required. Consequently it’s very difficult to get any sense of space and the impression is given throughout that people talking to each other were shot separately. In this instance, it seems that we were confusingly cutting between two separate scenes rather than within one scene but later the opposite seems to be (equally confusingly) true.

The other problem - well, it’s more of a theme really - is that vast amounts of things explode in this film. There are physical pyrotechnics, there are digital fireballs. Things blow up like you wouldn’t believe.

Velislava sits on some sort of throne in a minimalist court set flanked by two male vampires, one of whom is Sandra’s boyfriend and possibly the fellow we just saw seduced by the ever-ready Ms Daly. (Before this we have a shot of two gunmen wearing purple hoods blasting away at Sandra without killing her; one of them holds his gun sideways in a way that no-one did in the 1940s because in those days nobody made dumb action films where people hold their pistols sideways to look cool.)

“We have graced you with the unique gift of deathlessness,” proclaims Eileen, probably the only actor in Britain who could say a line like that without corpsing, “and all we got in return was arrogance and insubordination. How dare you disrespect us in such a hideous way?”

To be fair, there is worse dialogue that that in this film, a lot worse. But I rapidly stopped writing it down when I realised that pretty much all the dialogue was like that. Damn it, I’m not transcribing the entire movie. The whole of this first segment is a never-ending stream of sixth form poetry, as if this was written by a 17-year-old goth chick with dyed hair, too much eye-liner, a Sisters of Mercy poster on her bedroom wall and an ambition to be some sort of unspecified ‘artist’. It gets slightly better in the second and third segments but only in the sense that those pages seem to have been written by a 20-year-old goth chick who has got laid, left art college, taken down the poster and decided to specifically become a ‘writer’ of some sort.

Really, you have never heard dialogue like this. It is as portentous as it is pretentious, full of hilariously overblown metaphors (“the ruby wine of life”) and utterly devoid of contractions so that every single line sounds like an announcement (or like Data on Star Trek). It’s like listening to an endless list of crappy fantasy book titles. That’s it: every line of dialogue sounds like the title of something. Something bad and unreadable. With a dragon on the cover.

As far as I can make out, Sandra has somehow betrayed her vampireness (her ‘deathlessness’) so she is sentenced to have her immortality revoked (leaving her, I suppose, deathlessnessless) and then be executed, when she shall suffer her deathlessnesslessness.

Specifically, she is to be crucified. Because it wouldn’t be a dodgy goth horror flick without some sort of ‘shocking’ anti-Christian imagery. (Speaking of imagery, there are Nazi eagles in the set and the costumes but without any swastikas.) As Sandra hangs bloody and bruised from a cross, surrounded by rotting corpses on similar crosses, she has a narrated flashback to when she first met, and was vampirised by, her undead boyfriend - who I think is called Dragan and is played by Peter Godwin (Pervirella, Razor Blade Smile) but only because I can identify all the other named male characters in the cast list.

All the scenes in this segment are jumbled up for some reason so we then have an inexplicable sequence where Velislava cuts her wrist to drain her blood into a cup, which an unharmed Sandra drinks. Ah heck, I’m going to give you another bit of dialogue here. This is the oath that Eileen (I can’t keep typing that bloody character name) makes Sandra repeat as part of this little ceremony.

“I am a vampire.
I worship my ego,
I worship my life,
For I am the only god that is.
I am a vampire."
(And anyone who knows their Hancock’s Half Hour will probably feel like joining me in a recitation of ‘Rinky tinky on purple grass.’)

Anyway, I don’t know what Eileen was expecting to happen here to Sandra but she is shocked when, well, nothing happens. Sandra reveals that she and Dragan switched the cups so she drank her own blood instead of Eileen’s. And the segment concludes with Eileen dying on a cross instead, which is now lying down on the side of a chalky hill for some reason.

Which brings us back to Adka and Paige and their British friend Jessica/Jessie (Welsh model Charly Barber) who are watching the end of a dodgy, sub-Hammer, 1960s horror/action movie called You Only Die Twice (‘A Filmfangs Production’). “In my early days in this country,” says Adka, “I was a propmaker for Filmfangs. Let me tell you what really happened.”

And thus we move swiftly into the second segment ‘Vampire Vendetta’ which is devoid of dialogue, being entirely narrated by an unnamed female vampire slayer (Natalie Jones, who was in a 2005 Doctor Who episode and is not, despite what the IMDB reckons, the porn star of that name). The star of You Only Die Twice was an actor named ‘The Duke’ who is described in the voice-over as “a horror movie star with a thing for street hookers” and who is successfully killed by the Slayer in a reasonably well-directed action scene featuring lots of breakages and explosions. But “The Duke’s only offspring, the invincible Nemesis” - a weird chick with straight, dyed red hair and a long, purple gown who floats down from the rafters - successfully resurrects her poppa by stabbing the Slayer then using the bloody dagger in some sort of ceremony.

The Duke is played by veteran Greek actor Nikos Tsachiridis who started acting in the early 1950s. His 120+ films include Island of Death, obscure 1970s Chris Wicking-scripted Anglo-Greek horror The Rhodes Incident aka Medusa and an episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. British stuntwoman Dani Biernat plays his daughter, her stunt credits including Devil's Playground, The Phantom Menace, Tomorrow Never Dies, 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead, Life on Mars and Doctor Who.

The Slayer recovers, and some months later is doing a favour for a pimp. Well, he had helped her in the past so she owes him a favour and has agreed to collect a couple of prossies who are overdue from their latest, erm, what would one call it? Anyway, they should have finished by now but but they’re late so the pimp has asked this woman whom we know only as the Slayer to drive over to somewhere and collect them. And although she’s back to full fitness after the unfortunate stabbing incident a few months ago, there don’t seem to be too many vampires around so she’s happy to do a bit of chauffeuring for her pal the pimp.

Yes, it really is as nonsensical as the above paragraph makes it sound. And of course this rather suggests that the two naked young ladies (Cindy Read and Amanda Dawkins, both of whom were also in Sacred Flesh) currently indulging in a lesbian tryst for The Duke aren’t actually ‘street hookers’. But never mind. There is a good deal of tastefully photographed and even slightly erotic sapphic ooh-la-la, accompanied by a swinging jazz soundtrack and overseen by a delighted The Duke. But then he has to take it too far and kill one of the whores while chowing down on the other.

All of which leads to a fight between the Slayer and Nemesis, under the watchful eye of The Duke, which ends with the Slayer smashing a bottle over Nemesis’ head and then slicing her head off. Whereupon The Duke howls an over-dubbed “No-o-o-o-o!” - the only word of actual dialogue in the segment - and bows his head for the Slayer to chop that off too.

Which is all well and good but isn’t this supposed to be Adka’s account of what happened on the set of You Only Die Twice when he was a propmaker? How does he know any of this? And why has he suddenly vanished from the linking material to which we return. Paige and Jessica now appear to be room-mates, with Jessie trying to get over a relationship, so Paige persuades her to come out to “the hottest place in town” - a night club called ‘The Coven’ (which Paige mispronounces ‘coe-ven’).

In this establishment they meet two men who already know Paige: balding Jordan (Duncan Skinner, who also wrote some of the script and subsequently executive produced Kim Sønderholm’s feature Craig) and the club’s owner Ian (Ian Robertson) who has the voice of Roger Moore and the hairstyle of Steven Segal. Returning for a second night, the girls are drugged by the men (who are, of course, vampires) and turned.

Then suddenly, without explanation, Adka turns up, whereupon Ian calls him a “self-appointed slayer” and kills him. Poor old Adka. When the movie started he was studying that ancient book and it looked like he would be a major character. But since then he has had about three lines of dialogue and screen time of about 90 seconds. And now he is dead and no-one ever mentions him again.

The two girls are unhappy about killing people to survive but decide that it might be okay if they only feed on horrible people. Paige comes across a pimp (David de Villiers) slapping around a whore (former ‘Miss Greece’ Evelina Papantoniou) and challenges him. He comes at her with a flick-knife but she disarms him, beats him up and then ties him to the upright brush of a car-wash so large that it must be a lorry-wash. Which you must admit is an odd thing to tie someone to. And the ladies then bite his neck and drink his blood.

Meanwhile, Ian and Jordan are worried for some reason, sure that Paige and Jessica will harm them. Jordan, on his own, is given a present by the girls to say thank you for introducing them to a life of violence, fear and sticky red liquids. It’s a lovely present, all wrapped up in paper and everything. When he unwraps it... it’s a book. But not any book, it’s Velislava’s book, which has a 3D demon face on the front. Apparently when Adka came to rescue them he brought this and dropped it and Ian picked it up and kept it in his study but Paige stole it from there. Don’t you love films where major plot points are not shown but simply described in summary by a character when it becomes expedient to do so.

Well, some sort of beam of stuff blasts out of the demon face on the cover and kills Jordan. Then Ian arrives and sneers that the book is “nothing but a gimmick” but, in the film’s only genuinely - if momentarily - effective sequence, who should emerge from the book but Veliswotsit herself. Yay, Eileen’s back in town! And her enforced sixty year holiday inside the book has turned her into a good vampire so she kills Ian in some way and gives Paige and Jessie a pep talk about how to use the gift of deathlessness wisely.

That third segment is called ‘The Coven’ (or probably ‘The Coe-ven’) but it’s not quite over yet because we now visit a cinema which is hosting a weekend-long retrospective of Filmfangs movies (called, naturally, Filmfangsfestival). Paige, Jessie and lots of other people who we are possibly meant to recognise (but don’t) watch a trailer for Dungeon of the Demonic Doctors (“filmed in realistic Squirm-o-vision!”) and then the first few minutes of Satan’s Sluts (starring ‘Mona More’ and ‘Brenda Bare’). This has a dark-skinned girl (Elaine Eastman), named Ebony even though she’s a long way from being actually black, arguing with a blonde girl (Donna Chiappini) in a night-club washroom. After Blondie leaves, Ebony snorts some coke and then meets a pale, dark-lipped gothette (Nena Chronopoulou) who takes her home and bites her neck.

At this point, a sleazeball sitting next to Jessica (played, I think, by the film’s director Manos Kalaitzakis) asks her if she wants to get high, which cuts to Jessie and Paige back home with the guy, advancing on him with a flick-knife. And the whole thing wraps up with six and a half minutes of credits, padding the running time out to 72 minutes.

Don’t get me wrong, Sentinels of Darkness isn’t actually bad - apart from the dialogue which is hilariously awful, especially in the first segment. The production values are actually fairly lavish, once we get past the we-can-afford-the-furniture-but-not-the-walls stuff. Most of the acting’s pretty good and the cinematography is great, Greg Theodoridis bringing an almost Bava-like colour palette to the photography. Visually, the film is remarkable.

But the plot doesn’t hold together at all. The first two segments have no real connection with the main bulk of the film, apart from Eileen’s brief, arbitrary resurrection near the end. All the ‘Filmfangs’ stuff is obviously meant to be an homage to Hammer but it’s laboured and obvious. Worst of all, the film simply doesn’t fit together. Adka’s demise is so swift and arbitrary that there must surely have been a much longer, unfilmed scene there.

There is so much crammed into the brief running time - first segment, second segment, third/framing segment, fake trailers and film clips, plus a prologue of captions apparently written by that 17-year-old goth chick, all in about 65 minutes of actual film - that there is no chance to explore anything in depth. Paige and Jessica’s revulsion at becoming vampires, the female slayer’s background and motivation, anything at all about Adka - none of this gets dealt with or even touched upon, and Christ knows what’s going on in that first segment which really just seems like a random collection of scenes from some longer story.

Possibly one reason for the disjointed, unsatisfactory nature of the script is the extraordinary writing credits which are considerably more complex than the Inaccurate Movie Database would lead you to believe.

The prologue, which presumably refers to Adka and Paige looking at the book and leaflets, was written by Manos Kalaitzakis and Duncan Skinner with ‘featured poetry “Drink Deeply and Dream” by Apoetess’ (sic), which presumably refers to the opening captions. The story and screenplay of ‘Curse of a Deathless’ are credited solely to Kalaitzakis ‘featuring selected writings by Marius Montefeltro; featured poetry “The Hunger” by Lee Clark, “The Gift” by Joni Latham, “Angel Heart” by Apoetess.’ With that number of people contributing words to something that doesn’t run much over a quarter of an hour, is it any wonder that it makes no sense? ‘Vampire Vendetta’ is again credited solely to the director (without any poetry) but then ‘The Coven’ has a story and screenplay credit shared between Kalaitzakis, Skinner and ‘Barbara J Helverson aka Bonniejean’. Skinner gets an additional solo credit for having written the ‘retro trailer voice-overs’.

You can actually read Joni Latham’s poem ‘The Gift’ here. I think it’s what Sandra says in voice-over during the flashback of how she met Dragan. I think. On another webpage, Latham refers to ‘Bonnie Jean Hamilton’ who is presumably ‘Barbara J Helverson aka Bonniejean’. [Yes, this is the same person: Barbara Helverson, who wrote the short story of 'the Coven' as BonnieJean Hamilton, a combination of a childhood nickname and her maiden name. Kalaitzakis found the story on a website although Helverson has subsequently removed it from the web in the hope that it might one day be properly published. Apparently the story is sustantially different to the film. - MJS]

Filmed entirely in English, Sentinels of Darkness was shot in both countries. The first segment was actually filmed at Ealing Studios, the second was made in Islington and the rest of the film was shot just outside Athens, with post-production in both the UK and Greece. Despite the presence of many British actors in the cast, all of them except Eileen and a couple of the porno girls are actually based in Greece, even some of the ones who shot their scenes in London. Incidentally, four actors are credited as ‘Yodt lead’ and ‘1st, 2nd and 3rd Yodt victims’ which puzzled me immensely until I realised that these were the gun-toting actors seen in the clip from You Only Die Twice (= YODT). One of these, Christos Mantakas was also in legendary 1999 Greek sci-fi comedy - and I promise that I am not making this up - Attack of the Giant Moussaka.

The Greek DVD of Sentinels of Darkness includes two trailers, thirty seconds of behind-the-scenes footage of stunt co-ordinator Peter Brayham, four minutes of bloopers (mostly involving Duncan Skinner) and an eleven-minute montage of behind-the-scenes photos. One of the trailers reminded me quite how many things blow up in this film, as I think I have mentioned. One superb moment which had slipped my mind until I saw the trailer was that one of the masked goons in the You Only Die Twice gunfight gets hit by machine gun fire, leaps into the air - and explodes! Boy, I have never seen a vampire film with so many explosions.

Michalis Samiotis was the special effects supervisor, an experienced bod who also worked on Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, the 2005 BBC adaptation of My Family and Other Animals and an Aussie romcom called Beware of Greeks Bearing Guns! Like everyone in the Greek film industry (it seems) he has worked with Nico Mastorakis, in his case handling effects on Edge of Terror. For the UK shoot(s), Samiotis was joined by none other than Alan Whibley of a certain Cornish 'studio'. Make-up and prosthetic effects were handled by Melbourne-born brothers George and Roulis Alahouzos who, a few years later, created some of the headpieces and costumes for the opening ceremony of the 2004 Olympics. Harold Herbert, who also worked on Attack of the Giant Moussaka - I’m telling you, it’s a real film - handled the digital effects.

One final recognisable name is Louise Ross, who appeared briefly on screen in Sacred Flesh and who used to be marketing manager at Redemption. On this film she was location manager for the UK unit.

Which just leaves the question of who is Manos Kalaitzakis, to which the answer is I haven’t a clue. I can find no biographical information anywhere on the web and no other credits. The Inaccurate Movie Database reckons he was 1st AD on a 1987 Greek picture under a slightly different name so that probably isn’t him. Especially as, judging by the photos and footage in the DVD extras, he would have been about ten at the time. He’s a mystery man and his sole cinematic work is a mystery film which evidently had a VHS and DVD release in Greece in 2002 (the on-screen copyright is 2001) but doesn’t seem to have ever been released in the UK or, frankly, anywhere that isn’t Greece.

Incidentally, check out the VHS sleeve and specifically the names at the top. That’s the bloke who plays Adka for a minute and a half, two women who appear briefly in clips of fake films (the gothette in Satan’s Sluts and the ‘Yodt lead’) and someone called Eillen Daly! On the DVD release, not only was Eileen’s name spelled correctly but Lydia Iliopoulou had been replaced with the considerably more famous Nikos Tsachiridis (The Duke) although Nena Chronopoulou was still on there so she must have a good agent. (I thought that her name was spelled ‘Kronopoulou’ on the sleeve but it’s actually ‘Xronopoulou’, under which name a Google image search throws up a few sexy nude photos of her but no information.)

It’s a real shame that this remains so obscure because it’s a fascinating film. It’s not really that bad and where it is that bad it is at least entertainingly bad. But much of the film is quite decent: direction, acting, design and number of explosions. What happened to this film? Why did it disappear from view like this? Answers please on a postcard of the Acropolis...

MJS rating: B

Review originally posted 14th November 2008

Sacred Flesh

$
0
0
Director: Nigel Wingrove
Writer: Nigel Wingrove
Producer: Louise Bass
Cast: Sally Tremaine, Simon Hill, Moyna Cope
Country: UK
Year of release: 2000
Reviewed from: UK DVD (Redemption)

Once upon a time, Salvation/Redemption was the most important British label for horror videos. They released a mixture of Euro-sleaze (such as Lips of Blood), British horror (such as Virgin Witch) and old classics (such as The Vampire Bat). All the tapes came packaged in those black and white stylish covers, most of which had photos of Eileen Daly looking suitably gothic. You could spot a Redemption video at a hundred yards and the company had a reputation for caring about their product. Redemption developed a whole franchise around itself, even to the extent of having its own magazine, The Redeemer, about all things vampish and gothic.

And then Redemption sort of faded away. They repackaged old product at lower prices but there didn’t seem to be much new stuff emerging and the excitement of a new Redemption video became rarer. I don’t profess to know the business side of things but the impression given was that there were commercial as well as artistic factors involved. The UK cult video market has changed dramatically in recent years, with the advent of DVDs, a slew of new specialist labels, greater international availability and the emergence of the web requiring complete reinvention of sales and marketing techniques.

I’m not saying Redemption ever really went away, but they were quiet for a while. Well now here’s a couple of blood-spattered new releases landing on my doormat, requiring me to ensure that TF Simpson is sound asleep before I pop them into the DVD player. One disc is the first uncut UK release ofNight of the Bloody Apes. The other is Sacred Flesh which is, I believe, Redemption’s only foray (so far) into actual film-making.

It’s British, it’s sleazy, it’s nunsploitation at its most nunsploitational. It’s sexy but, er, it’s pretty dull I’m afraid.

Let me be clear. If you’re Redemption’s ideal target customer - a corset-wearing goth with a library of vampire novels, a bathroom cabinet full of eye-liner and hairspray, an eye-watering collection of tattoos and piercings, a subscription to Skin Two magazine and far too many Gene Loves Jezebel albums (ie. one) - then you’ll love this. As for the rest of us...

The film revolves around a nunnery where the Mother Superior is having visions which cause her to describe the other nuns indulging in sexual shenanigans. The Abbess (Moyna Cope) calls in a local Abbot (Simon Hill) whose scarlet cassock and wide-brimmed hat is probably ecclesiastically and historically accurate but unfortunately can only make one think of Monty Python’s Cardinal Fang. With his servant Richard (Moses Rockman), a straight-talking, lusty peasant lad, the Abbot sets off from wherever he is (an abbey, I suppose) towards the nunnery.

I couldn’t help noticing that the Abbot tells Richard to pack his bags as they will set out first thing tomorrow but in the scenes of them travelling - one on horseback, one on foot - the only luggage is Richard’s tiny satchel which is far too small to contain the cooking pot that they use when they stop for a meal. (A peasant girl spies on them and then steals some of their food although this has no bearing on, or connection with, anything else and seems to have been added just to pad the running time.)

When they reach the nunnery, the film breaks up into a number of strands. One is simply the Abbess and the Abbot walking through the gardens, discussing the matter in hand and its bearing on Christian teachings. An adjunct to this is Richard chatting up Marion (Louise Linehan) a local girl who works at the nunnery. This sub-subplot is presumably supposed to show their healthy sexuality in contrast to the repressed lust of the nuns, which it does to some extent - but then Richard and Marion just disappear from the film.

The Mother Superior (Sally Tremaine) appears in three strands of the ‘plot’. On her own in her cell she talks to herself about what she believes the other nuns are doing. In another strand, in some sort of limbo, she debates religion and sex with Mary Magdalene (Kristina Bill: The Affair of the Necklace) who has a red-painted ‘succubus’ sitting beside her throne. This was evidently shot green-screen and the background is a constantly moving montage of medieval writing. Thirdly, the Mother Superior faces a skeletal nun (Rachel Taggart, who had a small role in Cronenberg’s Spider) who is credited as ‘Catechism’ and whose electronically treated voice is quite difficult to make out. Dear old Eileen Daly is also in these scenes as ‘Repression’. Clad in an extraordinary green rubber cape and an even weirder green rubber wig, she scampers around behind the skeleton, impishly spouting odd phrases and little poems.

I’m tempted to say, ”Christ alone knows what’s going on” - but He surely doesn’t watch stuff like this.

The final part of the film is the bit with the naughty young nuns getting up to all sorts of malarkey because they are so sexually repressed, do you see? There are four sex scenes, the first one being a full 25 minutes into this 73-minute film. First a single nun rubs one out, then two nuns go at each other. Then a nun is groped by two randy priests and finally there’s an odd three-(or possibly four-) way. A lesbian trio take revenge on a nun who reported one of them, ‘ambushing’ her and tying her to a wooden cross. The scene cuts between the three nuns having their way with each other and one of them having her way with the nun on the cross. Both these intercut sequences seem to follow on from the same scene but they can’t both be happening because that would require five nuns - and there’s only four. My head hurts.

All the nuns, by the way, look identical, with or without their clothes on. Fortunately none of them appear to have any piercings, tattoos or obviously fake breasts.

Eventually the film just ends. Oh, there’s some final weirdness about a lesbian nun groping a female Christ or something but that’s not really explained.

The sex scenes are nicely shot and yes, quite erotic. This is certainly several steps above the sort of lesbo antics that one finds in Surrender Cinema titles although it shares those films’ determination to show everything except actual sex. There’s nothing hardcore but the original release (on one or two cinema screens in London in 2000, then on DVD that same year) required about 19 seconds of genital close-ups to be replaced with less salubrious shots in accordance with the wishes of the BBFC.

But to get to this good stuff you have to sit through all that pontification by the Abbot and Abbess which just ladles up boring, sixth-form discussion of moral issues and Christian dogma. It’s like listening to two people reading out their essays. This film doesn’t just have infodumps, it has infodumps that are clearly labelled with big stickers that say ‘infodump’ and are easily found by following all the signs that say ‘infodump this way’. Dear God it’s boring.

I can’t see what this film is trying to do. Well, I can see the basics: it’s trying to criticise religious repression of sexuality and be as blasphemous as possible (although thankfully not quite as childishly as crap like Hellraiser III). But who wants to watch something like this, apart from British horror completists and those Salvation/Redemption fans so in thrall to the company/franchise that they spend their hard-earned money on postcards of ‘Satanic sluts’?

This is not well-written enough to be intellectually stimulating (in fact, let’s be honest, the script is lousy) but neither is it trashy enough to be entertaining. Granted, it’s arousing on a basic level: what sort of heterosexual man isn’t going to feel stirrings in the Y-fronts while watching two young women sixty-nining on a stone floor, clad only in stockings and wimples? But is it enjoyable? Not really.

The nuns include several actual porn actresses: Sarah McLean, who seems to specialise in ‘wet’ porno films (whatever they are - don’t tell me); Hannah Callow from Bosom Buddies 4 and 6; Majella Shepherd, who apparently starred in Barely Legal 18 when she was 22; Cindy Read and Amanda Dawkins, who were both in another indie horror feature, Sentinels of Darkness; and Michelle Thorne, who was in Cathula 2: Vampires of Sex and has also done voices for UK anime releases. Other nuns include producer Louise Ross (who was also in a certain Silence of the Lambs rip-off) and Swedish actress Anneka Svenska who was presenter ‘Eden’ on the first series of weird filmclips show outTHERE. (The role of Eden was subsequently taken by Emily Booth who has a non-speaking blink-and-you’ll-miss-her role as a peasant girl being groped by Richard when we first meet him.)

Christopher Adamson (The Last Horror Movie, Lighthouse, Evil Aliens) plays one of the randy priests while Nucleus Films’ Marc Morris is one of two red-robed inquisitors in a scene which features in the stills gallery but not the film. Marc’s business partner Jake West gets a credit for additional editing and for editing the blood-dripping title sequence. The rather nice cinematography is shared between Chris Herd, James MacDonald and Geoff Mills. Dena Costello (Razor Blade Smile, Warrior Sisters) designed the costumes which fall to the floor with alarming regularity.

There’s a couple of dozen photos (stills and behind-the-scenes shots) in the DVD extras - although it would have been nice to see them full-frame instead of cramped in a corner of the screen - plus a selection of storyboards, two trailers, a commentary and information on assorted Redemption merchandise. The sleeve blurb has three typos; I do wish Redemption would proof-read their sleeves before sending them to the printers. Why go to the trouble of designing a classy DVD package then not check which way round the accent goes on ‘exposé’?

Sacred Flesh is a soft porn film with pretensions but ultimately it’s still a porn film, in that a significant portion of its running time consists of sex scenes with no narrative purpose whatsoever. To be fair, the sex doesn’t drag on enough to become boring but it doesn’t need to because the dialogue scenes - between the Abbot and Abbess, between the Mother Superior and Mary Magdalene, and between the Mother Superior and the unintelligible skeleton nun - drag on more than enough to drag the film down, down, down. There’s no narrative here and certainly no characterisation. If you’re looking for a film that actually has a story and is about something, you’ve come to the wrong place I fear.

Watching Sacred Flesh is like listening to a staged debate on the nature of sexuality which is interrupted every five minutes to allow members of the audience to lick each other’s tits. It’s just thoroughly unsatisfying. Either give me a drama (preferably one with a much, much better script and less wooden acting) about psychosexual turmoil among medieval nuns - or give me 73 minutes of sexy lesbians. I don’t mind which.

MJS rating: C-

Review originally posted 14th March 2007

The Scar Crow

$
0
0
Directors: Andy Thompson, Pete Benson
Writers: Andy Thompson, Pete Benson
Producer: Andy Thompson
Cast: Marysia Kay, Kevyn Connett, Anna Tolputt
Country: UK
Year of release: 2009
Reviewed from: festival screening (LIFF 2009)

One of the advantages of a clichéed story is that it is usually quite easy to follow. We know what’s happening (and often, what’s about to happen) because we’ve seen it all before.

Conversely, original tales can be harder to follow and, at the lower levels of film-making, sometimes the convolutions of the story get so wrapped up that, to be honest, it’s not clear what is going on. That doesn’t necessarily stop them from being enjoyable of course. But one of the things that a bigger budget brings you is better (and more) writers who can fashion a plot which constantly surprises while at the same time remaining coherent and consistent.

The Scar Crow is a decent little film. I caught it on the closing night of the 2009 London Independent Film Festival where it had picked up the prize for Best Sci-fi/Horror Feature. And deservedly so. I enjoyed The Scar Crow (which was preceded by the impressive short My Name is Sarah Hayward). It’s well-made and different to the majority of indie horror films being trotted out nowadays. But, thinking about it afterwards, I honestly couldn’t piece together precisely what happened and why.

The film kicks off with a 17th century prologue. A village woman is hanged as a witch (one character says she was “hung” which annoyed me because, while folks may not use the verb very much now, in those days I’m sure even peasants knew the correct past tense of ‘hang’ in this context - but I digress).

Elizabeth Tanner (Julie Barnard, on-screen for no more than a minute but earning her fee) was married to a right bastard (Andrew Bolton, who may possibly have played Winston Churchill on Japanese TV) who is glad to see the back of her, not least because it leaves him more time to have his way with his two oldest daughters, Vanessa (spooky Marysia Kay: Blood + Roses, Colour from the Dark) and Proper (buxom Gabrielle Douglas). When he tries to rape his third daughter Primrose (pixie-ish Anna Tolputt, who was in Hellraiser: Hellworld and a touring version of Fahrenheit 451), the girls turn on him - then have to figure out how to get rid of the body.

You wouldn’t have thought that was too difficult a challenge for someone living on a farm in those pre-forensic days. Tie rocks to his feet and chuck him in a lake. Chop him into pieces and feed him to the pigs. Maybe just bury him in the woods.

Or... you could tie the body to a wooden cross in the middle of a cornfield, dress it in rags, stick a sack over the head and hope that any passing folk assume it’s a scarecrow. Or a scar crow (the film’s title is never actually explained). Before their father burned all his late wife’s magical texts, Primrose purloined one and the girls now use this to put a curse of some sort on their evil dad. Which seems a bit extraneous, what with him being dead and everything.

But Father Tanner is not quite dead and with his last breath he curses them right back. They can never leave the farm unless, well, until, ah, erm, it’s not exactly clear. But they’re well and truly cursed.

Suddenly we’re thrust into the present day as a young chap named Daz (Kevyn Connett: Jesus the Curry King) wakes from a nightmare but is comforted by his fiancee Rachel (Anya Lahiri, who was part of the UK’s 1999 Eurovision entry!). The film proper starts here and is presented as one enormous flashback to what caused Daz’s recurring nightmare.

It seems that Daz, along with three slightly more laddish colleagues, was sent on a sort of outward bound, team-building course, which immediately lumps this into a sub-subgenre with the likes of Severance and Bloodmyth. Daz’s compatriots are Tonk (Tim Major: 24 Hours in London) who has agreed to be his best man, Joe (Michael Walker) and Nigel (Darren McIlroy, who played a zombie in Colin). 1st AD Iain Rogerson and Markolai Bolkonsky play the two ‘commandos’ who, having taught the lads survival skills, leave them without phones, maps or money in the middle of nowhere. Neither ‘commando’ looks like he could do an assault course without stopping for a long sit-down halfway round, to be honest.

As soon as the two organisers are gone, the lads retrieve a mobile phone and some cash from where they have secreted it about their persons and phone for a mate to come pick them up once they have worked out where they are. (That’s the essential problem with leaving people in the middle of nowhere in Britain. Unless you’re somewhere in the Scottish Highlands, it’s very difficult to be more than a few miles from a road.)

So the lads walk and find a farm occupied by three comely young country lasses who welcome them, offer shelter in the barn and provide directions to the nearest pub, where the locals warn them to stay away from the farm because it’s haunted.

Staggering back across the fields, late at night, the first casualty is Joe who stops for a piss. And because men must always piss against something upright (it’s a tradition or an old charter or something) he urinates against a handy scarecrow ... which flexes its fingers then reaches down and rips the man’s dick off. Which is rather startling because that’s the sort of thing you expect in a Troma film and this is not, for the most part, aspiring to be Tromatic. Presumably Joe's mates are too far away and/or drunk to hear his screams across the quiet countryside night.

Back at the farm, Nigel and Tonk get amorous with Vanessa and Proper but Daz and Prim are uncomfortable and would rather just talk. After those two leave, Proper informs Tonk that a shag is out of the question as Arsenal are playing at home so he leaves, disappointed. Meanwhile, Vanessa is seducing Nigel in a bedroom. When Proper enters and both get their baps out, Nigel can’t believe his luck and allows them to blindfold him and tie him to the bed for some kinky stuff. Which is, you know, never a good idea. I think you can all see where that’s going...

After a drunken disagreement, Daz and Tonk crash out in their sleeping bags, waking the next morning to find that neither Nigel nor Joe is anywhere to be seen. This is where the film picks up considerably, not least through some smart editing between the blood-spattered bedroom and the pristine sheets that the girls show the lads. The discovery of their friends’ bodies convinces Daz and Tonk that a psycho is on the loose and actually that’s a smartly handled, original idea. Far too often, characters in films accept unquestioningly that the danger they face is supernatural or paranormal in some way rather than the more likely (but equally appalling) suggestion that multiple deaths are due to a serial killer.

The downside of this third act is that it becomes increasingly difficult to work out why the girls and their scarecrow/father are doing what they are doing. There is a mention of them needing five people to lift the curse although they actually have six as the pub landlord gets eviscerated and so does Mike (actor not credited), the mate who is driving over to collect the boys. I think - and this is only a vague guess - that the girls have to construct a new human scarecrow from parts of five men, which is why they initially strap a torso to the wooden cross and later add a head. I guess the other three bodies provide the arms, the legs and the heart. Or something. And this will lift the curse on their father who will then lift the curse on the girls. Or something.

Oh, there is also a really bizarre bit somewhere in there where Prim gives Daz a dreamcatcher. Eh? Isn't that a Native American artefact? What's that doing in rural England, in the hands of a 300-year-old ghost?

The scarecrow is by now a full-on perambulatory monster and there is an effective but underused effect of bits of straw appearing before he does, so that when Mike is driving along the first indication that we have that something is up is straw blowing in through the air-vent. But why did the girls have to wait 300 years for four men to turn up (we are told that other people have tried to work the ‘cursed’ farm until fairly recently), especially given that their family’s influence can evidently reach as far as the pub, where there must have frequently been enough potential victims.

Eventually we cut back to the framing story of Daz and Rachel in bed. Truth be told, only at this point does it become evident that it’s a framing story. The early scene of Daz waking up was from a nightmare about Elizabeth Tanner’s hanging and it really wasn’t clear, when we cut to the four colleagues being trained by the two fat blokes, that this was related to Daz’s nightmares rather than a few days later. That’s an example of film-makers thinking that something is obvious when it’s not. There is at first no apparent connection between the 17th century lynching and the 21st century survival course so the audience, not having read the script, aren’t clued in that what happens to Daz in the field is before the bedroom scene.

But beyond that, the framing story creates its own, frankly enormous problem, which is this. Rachel tries to convince Daz that his nightmares are just that: bad dreams. That this didn’t really happen. But hang on: what about Daz’s friend Tonk? You remember, he was going to be Best Man at your wedding. Even if his bloody corpse hasn’t been found, aren’t you wondering where he has disappeared to? And Daz’s other two colleagues.

Four young men were left in an unidentified location by a survival training company contracted by their employer and only one came back, babbling about ghosts, witches, scarecrows and how his three friends were gruesomely killed. Wouldn’t this raise some alarm bells with their employer, with the fat training commando guys, with the police? On top of which, somewhere there is Mike’s car, its interior splattered with Mike’s blood. And the regular drinkers at the village pub must surely have discovered the rotting cadaver of their partly dismembered landlord by now.

And Rachel is convinced that Daz’s story is all a dream?

If it was a dream - let’s just play Devil’s advocate here - wouldn’t Daz be the prime suspect in a series of five related murders? After a gripping and well-crafted third act, the film falls apart with this nonsensical epilogue (and I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that something else happens right at the end...).

Special effects bloke Mike Peel (Dead Wood, The Zombie Diaries) does stirling work here with injuries, body parts and a particularly imaginative heart-ripping scene. He also plays the unfortunate Mein Host of the village inn. Michael Walker (he plays Joe - do try to keep up) pulls double duty inside the scarecrow costume.

Cinematographer Trevor Speed was part of the camera team on The Hills Have Eyes II, The Devil’s Chair and I Love You. The video image looked a bit flat at the festival screening where I caught this but then projecting a DVD rarely flatters decent photography. He certainly seemed to make a good job of the historical prologue. The most obvious problem is the lighting of night-time scenes: since the sisters’ candles are insufficient to provide believable light, the room is illuminated by bright lights outside the windows, filtered through ragged curtains. But it’s just way too bright and suggests that it’s the middle of the day when we know from the story that it’s supposed to be the small hours of the morning. Meanwhile, editor Jake Proctor was kept busy with a few switcheroos between levels of reality and also with occasional flashback blasts of images which don’t really work because (a) we can’t see anything clearly but, more importantly, (b) it’s unclear who, if anyone, is experiencing these flashbacks.

Soundman Stephen Taylor has an extraordinary history as an album mixer/engineer going right back to Gong’s 1976 LP Gazeuse and taking in albums by Peter Gabriel, Stomu Yamashta, Phil Collins, Tina Turner, Bob Geldof, Judie Tzuke and others. As a result of hiring a bloke who knows what he’s doing, The Scar Crow has a fine sound mix, in other words one that you don’t really notice.

Production designer/art director Melanie Light has a number of interesting genre credits including I Love You, Beyond the Rave, Vivid, The Devil’s Chair, Blood River and Arthurian Asylum epic Merlin and the War of Dragons. She is also one of the zombirds in Doghouse, apparently! Costume designer Nell Knudson has worked on various short films (The Robot Man, Monica Guildheart) as well as Ed Boase’s Most Dangerous Game variant Blooded.

The Scar Crow is the feature debut of Andy Thompson and Pete Benson who shared writing and directing, with Thompson also producing and lending a hand with editing. It’s a commendable, enjoyably scary horror flick with some parts that are very good indeed and others that are less impressive but nothing that’s really bad. The cast are good, the effects are well-done and used effectively, the production values are impressive for a low-ish budgeted indie. Historical is always expensive.

In terms of genre, The Scar Crow slots neatly into the ‘unreconstructed laddish mates vs female supernatural threat’ subset of horror movies. With this film, Lesbian Vampire Killers and Doghouse all released within six months of each other, something is definitely afoot with British horror. However, the movie’s biggest problem is simply uncertainty over what it wants to be, exemplified by the every-man’s-nightmare penis-ripping and the every-man’s-dream-come-true topless sisterly threesome, both of which scenes sit awkwardly within this film but would be right at home in a trashy sub-Troma flick. Unlike LVK and Doghouse, this isn’t an actual horror-comedy but it has elements of character-based humour and it’s that tricky balance between horror and humour that doesn’t quite work.

Plus of course, there’s the inexplicable ‘curse’ plot. It is never clear to what extent the daughters are working with or against the scarecrow/father and we’re never given a clear explanation, even towards the end, of what their actual goal is that they’ve been working towards over the past three centuries.

But the operative word in the phrase “doesn’t quite work” is ‘quite’. It would be an impressive debut feature indeed that ticks all the right boxes, hits all the right buttons and gets everything right. The Scar Crow gets most things right and is worth 90 minutes of your time when it comes to DVD.

Mind, I never did work out what the title is supposed to mean.

MJS rating: B+

Review originally posted 4th May 2009

interview: Terry Stone

$
0
0
When I noticed the name of Terry Stone cropping up on my site several times - as actor in, and producer of, Ten Dead Men, Doghouseand Kung Fu Flid- I dropped him a line and he very graciously agreed to a phone interview in June 2009.

Are you an executive producer with a sideline in acting or an actor who also does executive producing?
“I’m an actor-executive!”

How did you get started in films?
“Basically from 1993 to 2003 I was running clubs. I did a thing called One Nation, Garage Nation. I won Best Promoter of the Year, I had a long list of awards and I went all round the world doing these clubs. Then a friend of mine, in 2002, said to me do you want to do a little bit in this film I’m doing? So I said yeah, why not? I turned up on the set and done my bit and my bit was basically standing there not saying anything! So after about an hour I said to the guy, I thought I was going to be in the film, and he said you’re just an extra.

“I said well, I’m not going to be an extra. If I don’t say anything, I’m walking, I’m going home. So the director said okay, what do you want to say? I said I don’t know. Because it was an ultra-low budget thing they said oh yeah, we’ll give you some dialogue and we kind of just made it up. Then the director said oh no, this guy’s really funny, we want to get him involved in the film. So I went from being an extra to actually having a part in it.

“Basically from there, we went to Cannes in 2003 where the film was screened. Everyone said: you should fuck the club promoting off, this that and the other. So I got out of it. At the time everyone thought I’d taken leave of my senses because I gave it all up to become an actor. I had some pictures done, took the scenes out of this film, then I sent out a letter to some agents. Got an agent - which was surreal really, bearing in mind I’d not been to drama school or anything.

“He put me up for stuff: I got EastEnders, I done My Family, a couple of bits of TV. Then I done another film called One Man and His Dog. Then I swapped agents, went to a bigger agency, and eventually sort of changed again. So really I suppose you could say, as an actor, I kind of went from having a small agent to a medium agent and now I’ve got a big agent. In the space of six years. That was my main thing: I wanted to be an actor.

“And then, because I’ve run businesses and I’ve raised money and stuff like that, people said, you know, why don’t you do your own film? And that was how One Man and His Dog come about really. I went back to my mates and said I’m doing a film, do you want to invest? I pulled the money up for that film that way. And that was a real low budget film but we got it released and considering I had no film-making knowledge or any clue about the film industry, I’m surprised we even got the film finished and put out really! It’s not the best film in the world but it was definitely a learning curve on how not to make a film!

“That led to me then doing Rollin' with the Nines then that led me to then doing Rise of the Footsoldier which led to Doghouse and all the other projects I’m involved with. It’s a little bit like when I started running the clubs. I started off giving out fliers, then I had a magazine, then I started selling tickets and then I started putting on events - and then I become the biggest club promoter in England. It sounds completely fucking nuts! But it was sort of organic: I did one thing that led to another thing that led to another thing.

“And it’s been the same with this really. I started off wanting to be an actor and then done that for a little while. Didn’t want to really just do TV stuff, then I started doing some other stuff. Then I got into films and made my own films. It’s weird how it’s all just kind of played out, you know! It’s as if I’m in a movie and it’s all fucking unravelling before my eyes! But it’s been a lot of fun and it’s been really exciting.”


Is there a film-making scene in London at the moment, a lot of people all working together frequently? Every time I get sent a British film now, there always seems to be cast and crew who worked on Rise of the Footsoldier, in particular.
“Well, the story about Rise of the Footsoldier is: the guy who it’s about is a mate of mine and he gave me his book and said I want to make a film. I read the book and said yeah, it’s a great book, make a good film. So I basically got it developed, I believed in it, I had a vision of it. This was in 2004 so it took me two years to get it off the ground, and it was fucking hard work. We kept getting the money then it fell apart, then we got the money, then it fell apart. It was a nightmare but the good news was we got it done in the end and it’s become one of the most popular and successful British films for that budget ever made.

Football Factory’s been out a lot longer, but Rise of the Footsoldier came out on DVD December 2007 and we’re only in June 2009 now and it’s done over 425,000 DVDs. So in another year and a half, two years, that could quite easily hit Football Factory figures - and obviously that’s one of the most successful British movies to date on DVD. So I think what happened is, when something’s successful or popular, it’s like anything: if an actor or actress is red hot everyone wants to use her, if a director’s red hot everyone wants to use him or her. It’s just that there’s this kind of mentality where no-one can come up with their own stuff, they just want to copy what everyone else does.

“So what I’ve kind of done is, I met Jake West and we got talking and I thought Doghouse was completely nuts. I thought it was a great concept and I just thought it was something different, you know. Everyone says it’s another Lesbian Vampire Killers but it’s not, it’s something completely different. It’s unfortunate really that it was released inbetween all the Hollywood blockbusters. If it had been released at a different time it could have done much better in the cinemas, with all the talent attached. But the good news is we didn’t spend a great deal on the cinema release. It’s done relatively well considering what we spent and the amount of cinemas we went on.

“And when it comes out on DVD, it’s a film that’s like Footsoldier, it’s a DVD title that everyone will buy and own and tell their mates about. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a year and a half’s time, that’s sold similar units to Footsoldier. For me, it’s great: wow, my film’s in the cinema, it’s took two or three million pounds. But the only person who’s happy about that is the cinema because they take seventy per cent of all the money. And the producer, he never has any money off the cinema and he spends all that money on advertising - you’re forever waiting to pay that off to get any money.

“So obviously we’ve not followed that model. We’ve just said well, we don’t want to spend too much but if the film’s going to perform on DVD the cinema release is, if you like, the advertising for the DVD. We’re not Transformers 2 or Star Trek. We haven’t got 180 million budgets, we’re working on one or two million so obviously we’ve got to make it work. So the way we make it work is: we make it as cheap as possible with the best quality, use the best actors we can get and use fresh talent. Jake West has been going a long time but this is his best film. Julian Gilbey had done Reckoning Day which was shot on a wind-up camera in his garden with his mates! He started off doing that and now he’s BAFTA-nominated, he’s behind Footsoldier and Rollin’ with the Nines, two films that I developed and produced. So I think I’ve got a good eye for talent.

“What I try to do is look for things that are similar to other things but different and then get up-and-coming actors, up-and-coming directors. I mean, obviously you have to use certain names when you make a film. If you want a big, scary, six-foot-three, cockney-looking actor you’re limited to three or four actors. If you want a kind of cockney geezer, you’re limited, it’s not like there’s hundreds of them. So you have to go for whatever you can get. And sometimes the people you want are available, sometimes they’re not. But we always try and use the best people for the job.

“We’re just in the process of setting up an animation studio which is going to be the first animation studio in Britain, called Gateway Animation. That’s going to be like an English Pixar. So we’re getting all that put together at the moment and we’ve got a really cool film that we’re going to be doing in September which is a kids’ movie. Noel Clarke’s going to be directing that. That’s called Bob and the Lost Idols and that’s going to be our first animation movie. Having kids, I’ve gone obviously into making kids’ movies! I’m not just doing violent gangster film, I’m doing kids stuff. We’re going to be doing some horror movies and some romcoms and some action movies. We’re just going to do a complete spread of different films. We’re not going to stick to just doing horror films or just doing gangster films.”

Will that be stop-motion animation or CGI?
“It’s going to be 3D animation. Monsters vs Aliens, Shrek - that’s what we’re aiming at. Obviously 3D animation is big at the moment. It takes two years to make a film from start to finish. So in two years’ time, everyone’s going to be doing 3D animation so there’s no point making it any other way. We’ve got to do it with what’s what, what everyone’s doing now. Because it’s definitely going to go that way. It’s not going to go any other way. Everyone in the world will be 3D animation and maybe some of the live action films are going to start being in 3D as well. I haven’t got a crystal ball to look into the future but I would bet quite a bit of money on it that that’s the way it’s going to go.”

I want to ask you about Kung Fu Flid. What was the idea behind that because it’s just completely out there?
“Hahaha! Well, what happened was this. A guy contacts me and he said, ‘I want to meet you, I’ve got this amazing script.’ I said well, send it to me and I’ll read it. ‘No, no, I’ve got to meet you because if I send it to you, you’ll think it’s a joke.’ He said, ‘I’ve got to meet you and pitch it to you.’ I went all right. So I’ve gone and met the guy. He turned up, sat down and he said, ‘My mate’s going to come and join us as well.’ Then Mat Fraser walked in and sat down. I said okay, what’s your film called. He said it’s called Flid.

“So I’m sitting there at he table, looking at Mat Fraser and this guy telling me about this film called Flid. So straightaway I think this is some fucking wind-up. Someone’s setting me up here. One of them fucking TV things - you’ve been punk’d or whatever! He was saying Mat’s going to be the action hero and all this and I just said, you know, this is the most fucking ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my life. I just said, this isn’t something that I think (a) we could get money for, (b) I want to do really.

“So then what happened was I kind of went away, then I was in Cannes. We started this FilmLounge.com movie website. I was talking to people and saying I want to get people coming to the site and this, that and the other. They said well, you need to put some mad stuff on there that people want to watch, make it exclusive to the FilmLounge. So I thought well, this guy’s just pitched me this mad idea and I thought maybe that’d work. So I was talking to people in Cannes about it and they said why don’t you call it The Karate Flid or The Kung Fu Flid. There was all these kinds of people saying oh yeah, I’d watch that, it’s fucking nuts, blah blah blah.

“Then when I got back I thought well, if I made it for a real low budget. It helps him out, obviously being a disabled actor he’s never going to get a chance to play a role like that. I thought, it helps him out and we donated two and a half per cent of the profits to Scope. I just thought we’ll do it, see what happens. So we made the film, we got some good talent attached. And you know, it’s not the best film in the world but we shot it in three weeks and for no money. It looks like a two or three hundred grand film. It gives Xavier Leret a chance. Obviously he wanted to direct another movie.

“So it was more to do with creating something for the FilmLounge to direct people to the site. But also to help charity, also to help Mat, so if you like it was my kind of charity film really where I done something to help other people. So that was why it come about. Some people still think it’s a fucking joke. When you tell people they say no, you’re fucking winding me up. You’re like no no no, honestly, it’s on the FilmLounge.

“But funnily enough, Anchor Bay have picked it up and are putting it on DVD in September in America, Canada, Australia, England. It’s got a multi-territory release. But they’ve changed the name to Unarmed but Dangerous because they said Kung Fu Flid’s offensive and stuff. I mean, he came up with the name! I said to him I’ve had these suggestions and they said yeah, we love that. We’ll call it Kung Fu Flid or Karate Flid, we don’t care.

“So it was all done a bit tongue in cheek but obviously, Mat being a thalidomite and obviously having the piss taken out of him when he was younger, growing up. I mean, he’s 48 years old. So he had the piss taken out of him badly - there was no political correctness when he was growing up. So he just got to the point where he was so used to it he didn’t care. He embraces the whole thing. It doesn’t offend him, he just thinks it’s funny. We had a lot of publicity, the Express did a nice piece about it and the News of the World. We had some great press on it so I’m really pleased with that.”

Finally, apart from the animated film, what other stuff are you working on?
“We’re doing a film at the moment called Shank which we’re doing with Revolver which is going to be like a futuristic Adulthood. That’s going to be filmed in August. I’ve got a horror film which is like a British Blair Witch-type movie called The Basement. That’s going in October. The kids animated movie is going in October. We’ll be prepping it in August but we’re actually recording the voices and doing all the work in October. Then we’re doing a film about the Essex Boys called Bonded by Blood. That’s going to go in November/December time. So I’ve got a busy year!”

Spirits of the Fall

$
0
0
Director: Russ Diaper
Writer: Russ Diaper, Paul Kelleher
Producer: Russ Diaper, David Diaper
Cast: Russ Diaper, Paul Kelleher, Rami Hilmi
Country: UK
Year of release: 2008
Reviewed from: screener

I’ve done some things in my time that other people haven’t, broken new ground, set new parameters. I was the first film journalist to champion Ivan Zuccon. I wrote the first reviews of a whole bunch of indie films, I helped to found SFX magazine, I wrote the first real biography of Douglas Adams. I was also (and this is something that no-one knows about me) the first person ever to go to a fancy dress party dressed as the British Antarctic Territory. Probably the last too. You see, the theme was ‘countries’ and I had this white shirt and...

Anyway, I now lay claim to being the first person to ever watch a double bill of two Russ Diaper feature films back-to-back. (On, as it happens, the day that Ivan’s latest was premiered in New York to great acclaim - see what a good word from me can eventually do for a film-maker’s career?)

The evening did not start well, as anyone who has read my review of Deadly Pursuit will attest. So then I settled down to watch Russ’ sophomore effort which sees him move from the action genre into horror. And do you know what? It’s not half bad. In places it’s downright spooky. It still has some of the technical problems of the previous feature but artistically it’s a huge step forward.

Several of the cast from Deadly Pursuit return, notably Paul Kelleher who also executive produced and co-wrote this one (on the IMDB he gets the curious credit ‘co-dialogue’ although on-screen he merely shares screenplay credit with Russ). Kelly-Marie Kerr is in both films too, as is top-billed Rami Hilmi and, obviously, Diaper himself.

Diaper and Hilmi play brothers Chris and Mark, the former of whom owns a hotel which closed down a year ago when his wife was murdered. Instantly, Spirits of the Fall scores over Deadly Pursuit by not only being set in the same country where it is filmed but by actually being shot in a hotel (though, curiously, we never see the outside of the building). What is distracting however is Hilmi’s accent. According to his bio he was born in Hampshire; I don’t know his parentage but Hilmi seems to be a Turkish surname and Rami is also from that end of the Mediterranean.

The point is that he and Russ play brothers and we’re given no explanation of why one of them has a British accent and one of them very definitely doesn’t. To be honest, I’m not sure why they had to be brothers. If they were just best mates or maybe cousins, the story would work perfectly well and we wouldn’t have to keep wondering about the accent. It may seem a minor point but it’s something that film-makers must look out for: audiences are easily distracted by unexplained, strange things like that because we keep expecting it to become relevant. Nothing in a film should be inconsequential.

Anyway, what happened one year ago is that a psychotic guest grabbed hold of Chris’ pregnant wife and threw the two-and-a-half of them from an upstairs window to their collective deaths. Understandably, Chris (Diaper) has since then kept well away from the hotel which was closed for business although Mark (Hilmi) employed a caretaker to look after the place. This is Henry, marvellously played by Kelleher with an eccentric intensity just short of over-the-top.

Unsurprisingly, spooky things start happening not long after Chris moves back into the still-closed hotel. He thinks he can hear his wife’s voice and a baby crying. Mark calls in a medium who identifies that the hotel was built on a site where witches were tortured and executed although precisely how this relates to the ghosts of Chris’ wife and unborn child isn’t clear. There is also a tall, hooded figure who is, I think, the ghost of the bloke who killed them.

Eventually, it turns out that creepy Henry, far from being involved in this spookiness has actually been ‘sent’ by some higher agency to resolve matters so that the ghosts can rest in peace. The film ends with Henry and Chris performing some sort of ceremony to banish the evil ghost and free the good ones. Again, I’m not sure if this has any relevance to the history of witch trials on the spot.

There are also a couple of passing references to Halloween, in fact the opening titles play over a jack-o-lantern, but this also seems to have no relevance except to satisfy some sort of EU ruling about things that must be in low-budget supernatural horror movies. However, even spurious EU legislation can’t explain the female character who is introduced near the start as a friend, possibly girlfriend, of Mark. She is in one scene, Chris suggests she could be the receptionist if the hotel reopens - and that’s it, we never hear from her again.

But the plot is not what makes a good ghost story, nor the characters. The characters must be good and it’s helpful, though far from essential, for the plot to make some sort of sense, but what sells a film like this is the atmosphere, the spookiness. Is Spirits of the Fall actually scary? Frankly, yes it is.

Director Diaper (aka Rusty Apper) admirably reins in the scares so that they are all the more effective. The hooded figure moves briefly, unnoticed, across the shot or sometime we see only his shadow when we know that Chris is alone. Brief visions of the dead wife include a startling one in a basin of water. Most disturbing of all is Chris’ trip into the torch-lit attic where he finds some antique photos, one of which briefly shows faces half-turned to skulls, as per the poster. This is terrifically unnerving. This is what we pay our money for.

The film’s biggest problem, which it shares with Deadly Pursuit, is the camera-work because once again everyone has a greenish skintone, presumably from the sodium lighting used for all the interiors. This isn’t so bad in the third act, which primarily comprises Henry, Chris and a bunch of candles where the unnatural skin hues seem more deliberate. But for much of the film it is almost as distracting as Rami Hilmi’s accent and we once again have shots where characters are almost in silhouette simply because there is a window in the background.

Unlike Deadly Pursuit, where the roll-call of camera operators was almost as long as the cast list, here there is only one credited cinematographer, Simon Quinlan, whose name is for some reason much smaller than anyone else’s in the credits. On the film’s website he is listed as ‘Simon Black’ and he’s not in the credit block at all. I don’t know how much contribution Mr Black/Quinlan (who also worked on Deadly Pursuit) made to the look of this picture but something has got to be done. Russ needs to make sure that his next film is properly lit by an experienced DP, whether that is Simon Quinlan with some training under his belt or someone else. He needs a proper camera, proper lighting, someone who understands white level and colour balance and that shooting directly towards brightly lit windows is generally a poor idea.

On Russ’ last film, the shockingly bad photography was just one part of a generally excruciating cinematic experience, but here it actually spoils what would otherwise be a smashing little movie (it’s 20 minutes shorter than Deadly Pursuit, which also helps). Perhaps it’s possible to do some sort of technical, computer thing which can restore the actor’s skin-tones to normal. That wouldn’t save Deadly Pursuit, not unless it was also possible to digitally remove all traces of Southampton, but it might make all the difference to this film.

Russ Diaper, whom I first saw as a copper in The Demon Within, has more films in development, notably Hellbilly 58 which features a Lloyd Kaufman cameo. He and Rami Hilmi are both currently working on Tour de Force for Kim Sønderholm (who was of course in Deadly Pursuit). Hilmi, who gives a solid performance here, was also in Colinand KillerKiller while Paul Kelleher provided a voice for Bane. Also in the cast are Fiona Domenica, Marlene Rodriguez, Caroline Boulton and Martin Wilkinson. An early version of the poster also lists Abigail Tartelin (The Butterfly Tattoo, Jack Says).

Watching Deadly Pursuit and Spirits of the Fall back-to-back has been a curious experience. The second film is in almost every respect a huge advance on the first and, to some extent, reinforces my suggestion that film-makers should not be so quick to release their first film on the world. On the basis of Deadly Pursuit, I never wanted to see another Russ Diaper film again. But as Spirits of the Fall was next in line in the TBW pile I had little choice and I’m happy to say that, based on the difference between the two, Russ Diaper shows real promise as a film-maker and I look forward to eventually reviewing Hellbilly 58 or whatever he comes up with next.

MJS rating: B

Review originally posted 24th October 2008
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live