Title: Daylight’s Deadly Kiss – Blood Riders Book Two by Jay Raven Date Published: 3rd April 2020 Genre: Horror Description: In 19th century Europe the most deadly vampire-killing weapon ever devised is up for grabs – and both the Undead and the living will stop at nothing to possess it… It’s a legend, a […]
I did recently finish reading The Silence by Tim Lebbon and couple of days later got to watching the Netflix adaptation. I have been reading a few of his books lately and I consider Lebbon to be one of the most interesting and rewarding modern British horror/fantasy authors. The book of The Silence was set here in the UK, and while elements of news reports and drama of the vesp creatures movements come from around Europe and the globe, the focus is mainly from the point of view of the young daughter Ally who is deaf and uses sign language to communicate with her family, and a lot of the second half of the book follows her father Hugh as he explores alone for food and shelter for the family. The tale is not really a horror story but more a survival tale, similar to John Wyndham’s The Day of the Triffids and The Chrysalids, I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The War of the Worlds with the blend of mass social paranoia, fear and anxiety over the population.
The book does as you may expect have richer detail of the character point of view, their thoughts and reactions to the building terror of the outbreak of the mysterious vesp creatures which decimate towns and cities and begin to travel across land and eventually overseas in a matter of days. You do get to know Ally and her father and family well over the four hundred or so pages as you follow them through trauma and sadness and read how this changes and challenges their family dynamic.
I was interested to see what changes had been made (as there usually always are changes, especially for Hollywood adaptations of books) for cinematic reasons. The book focuses on main characters who live in the UK and travel up toward Scotland. In the film, they are based in America and they simply travel across the country to look for a safe place. With the film being only one hour and a half it did skip forward after just ten or so minutes, moving quickly over some long sections of the book. Some parts are condensed, some changed slightly to build up the sense of drama on screen-I assume. Generally though, it does remain mostly the same to the book storyline, the acting from Stanley Tucci, Kiernan Shipka (lead of the new kooky and creepy Sabrina the teenage witch Netflix series) and others is all good and there are some strong memorable scenes, some new to the film. The family communicating with sign language was acted really well I thought. The main dramatic final sequence in the cottage with the vesp attack did work which I was almost doubtful about prior. The ending is slightly different to the book, possibly setting up a sequel. Though some were not impressed I would suggest that you watch it if you like suspense thrillers, Hitchcock movies, monster movies.
James Parsons is author of two science fiction/SF books – Orbital Kin- a scifi mystery thriller and Minerva Century- a far future cyborg space opera epic. Also his first horror novel Northern Souls set in and around the North East of England. All three are available as paperback & ebook now from Amazon, Waterstones and your friendly dependable independent bookshops.
Sexual relations with Count Dracula, Mr. Harker?
Now, that is the way to put a new spin on this most classic, well known influential horror tale. For some, that may have been pushing things too far right at the start.
I had heard about this new Dracula mini series many months ago, possibly a year ago or mroe when it was first announced to be a happening, with the same creative writing team of Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss. These are two men whom have been involved with some of the most creative genre fantasy shows on the BBC over the years. Moffat has delighted but equally infuriated Doctor Who fans with his regularly formally playful storylines and episodes often requiring the viewers to sit and watch very carefully and pay full attention or risk sudden full confusion. Gatiss is most famous for his work acting (several different characters) and writing in the cult dark comedy hit The League of Gentlemen which took great joy in continually playing with and sending up the clichés of classic horror and thriller movies, from Hammer Horror to Hitchcock and more. Together these two men set out to birth something very different from the tale of Dracula.
Moffat and Gatiss are now also very well known internationally as the duo who have given the world the massively successful fresh small screen series take on Sherlock Holmes starring Benedict Cumberbatch and martin Freeman. If you are familiar with that show (I am not a huge fan, but have seen a few episodes) you will be aware of how these two writers really like to find how they can open up and rework familiar tales and formats and play with what can be done using digital technology and a creative outlook over classic material. With Bram Stoker’s Dracula they continue with this approach, most of the time.
*Spoilers…
I felt i was almost kind of set up and ready for this version of the tale, having only a week or more before seen the epic three part new interpretation of A Christmas Carol from the BBC starring Guy Pearce which similarly gave a very surprising new start to proceedings before the familiar tale began. With this Dracula tale, we do get Jonathan Harker within seconds but in an unusual setting and the timeline of the tale has been flipped around.
So Jonathan Harker ends up confused, weak and looking very ill as he talks with Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells) about his perilous encounter. Something went horribly wrong and he knows it, from seeing his sick, pale complexion she and the other nuns know it too. After this start, the rest of the first episode does follow quite a lot of the start of the book from Jonathan’s experience as we know it. The direction and effects are good, soon throwing a number of slathering, hollow-eyed ghouls and minions at us from the dark and Jonathan stumbles around desperate to escape the Count. He does not escape as we expect, and we are asked to consider the sexual attraction between Harker and the Count in the final moments.
Episode two, and the tale moves forward with the familiar arc of the story-Dracula travelling by to the other land to spread death and plague. This entire episode takes place upon ship at sea, and has the feel of an Agatha Christie detective mystery eventually. Sister Agatha is taken along but considered the vampire or madwoman, while the bodies pile up and suspicion grows…
Personally this episode dropped in quality for me, but it did maintain a good dank atmosphere on the rocking old ship at sea, dark storms whirling around them. Though, like the previous episode this one does build up the tension very toward the end and has some great confrontational dialogue as with the Count and the nuns in the first.
There are some really great sets and effects which really help these good actors create a suitable end to the episode. Then comes episode three.
Oh now, episode three. This will be the point where many viewers shoot up from their armchairs in scoffing outrage, or sheer bemusement. Major spoiler- the last episode seeing Dracula land on the shores of Whitby, in the present day. He surrounded by special police who have been expecting him. The main officer confronting him is the descendant of Sister Agatha, same actor. Was this next step of the bold storytelling a step too far?
At this point the very familiar version of the world famous Stoker tale we all know in some form or other is dropped and the characters are in our world, in our time. Dracula is initially confused by a number of modern gadgets, buildings and customs, allowing for yet more darkly comic lines and puns. Did this Dracula have too many? With Jonathan Harker long gone, from the story we know Dracula moves ahead searching for and finding Lucy, with the aid of a modern-day Renfield (played by co-writer Gatiss). The actor whom we have come to know well as Sister Agatha (one of the very best parts of this new Dracula adaptation) now is a modern police detective woman, who seems to have the upper hand over the Count, when they soon enough trap him with Avengers/S.H.I.E.L.D. style equipment and contain him. It does not last and soon enough he is out and reaches Lucy. This is a modern but familiar enough Lucy, and at this point the modern UK world around them and buildings housing the characters, especially Dracula and shot, lit and filmed exquisitely, the show virtually matching American Horror Story in polish and style. This final episode sees Gatiss and Moffat bring a highly tragic Hammer horror end to poor Lucy and quite possibly sets up the potential for a second series. Question is-would we want a next series with Dracula continuing on in our modern times? Or do we prefer to see the Count in his familiar old world gothic surroundings?
Was I expecting too much from this? No, I knew about this adaptation but eventually only recorded it because I had the channel it was on and thought I would check it out. Was I surprised by it? Yes, I was more entertained than I may have expected, and I was glad I did not miss the excellent Sister Agatha character, as she was just superb and probably the highlight of it all. Were there too many quips and pun from Dracula? Hey, I have a good sense of humour (I hope) but yes probably just a few too many times this continued to happen. But then, ultimately I prefer straight horror. I may have preferred them not using Gatiss as Renfield either but I suppose they were going to have him in there somewhere. And of the last episode which seems to have really divide some people? It was a very inventive twist, which could have been the start of the series or ended up playing out in some other way and there were some good moments for sure.
As some have pointed out, this is simply an interpretation of the classic novel, not a full adaptation. There really have been so many actors playing the famous Count over the decades, many versions of the tale. Any version and interpretation of the Dracula story is possible, and this particular one is an entertaining ride through dreams and nightmares, some familiar and some new.
This Halloween gone I selected a few horror films I had yet to see to watch around the big night. The three which had priority were the Suspiria remake, Halloween 2018 and Phantasm Ravager. So Halloween was a couple of weeks gone now but let’s go back and I’ll consider my thoughts…
Suspiria remake 2018-
So this was a film which I had heard about for I think a year or two while it was in production. The very idea outraged and angered or confused many die-hard Dario Argento fans. We are talking here about a genuine classic and extremely influential (on horror films since the late seventies and even more so again in recent times) horror movie and real sensory over-load cinematic terror technicolour daydream/nightmare trip of and experience. What could or should be done to top such a unique horror movie? Why remake this particular movie?
Let’s face it, Hollywood or big studios are regularly remaking any thing which was either a big hit years ago or gained loyal cult following over time, almost garuanteeing a certain amount of financial return at cinemas-they hope. There were ways in make a different version of this Argento classic-for example, as with a good few of his films, there really is not very much going on in the story, only the basic concept of young woman goes to mysterious dance studio to train and soon enough a number of terrible things take place as the studio is run by (spoiler) witches…
The remake is make by director Luca Guadagnino, previously having made a number of philosophical arthouse films. He brings back Dakota Johnson and the reliably great Tilda Swinton from his previous film A Bigger Splash, a psychological drama. With Suspiria, and the reputation is had as arguably the most psychedelic and halucinogenic horror film he decided to take things in the opposite direction and give us a much more realistic, dense and slowly cold and sombre film which still has a sharp moments of fright.
Taking the very simplistic story elements Argento worked with, Guadagnino really draws out, expands and deepens a thick back story and sets the film in the late seventies/early eighties and gives it a tense and ominous backdrop of cold war paranoia and post war links while setting the story this time in Berlin. Was this too much?
The director had described this as his ‘homage’ to the original not just a straight remake, and this can be seen as true as he does reallu open out the concept and build upon the famous ‘Three Mothers’ idea with the infamous witches idea Dario went on to explore in his own visually highly stylized and almost operatic ways.
This Suspiria has flashbacks, flashforwards, many, many characters and a lot of detail to pay attention to during the more than two hour duration. Does it offer us too much plot and too little horror?
It is very slow moving, and very gradually builds. You may watch it wondering just when anything terrifying at all will jump from the screen but eventually we get to the dance studio and things get familiar. But then we have the dance routines…the dancing and the training does go on for a while, some people were frustrated by this. Eventually we do get a really ugly and well, twisted shocker of a scene and we’re really on our way into a deep, deadly tale. We may know where we’re going but this Suspiria is giving us different sights, sounds and details to fear all the way to the end.
It is a very long film. As a writer of horror novels, I can see how the very simple initial concept Argento used could be something very tempting to explore and dive down into to pull forth any number of alternative or elaborated versions of the original film. This director and his writer certainly have taken a good deal of time researching and considering what they could do in taking the idea to another specific time period, location and seeing what they could do by contrasting the horror and potential threat and fear of cold war and post war guilt against those found in the dance studio and the power of the formidable witches. Yes do get more witches this time, no doubt about that, and while I was going to suggest that this is more visually sadistic and gruesome and instantly remember the number of nasty and distinctly painfully elaborate death scenes from the original, though they were probably less troubling to view being so colourful and stylised in execution.
This director makes use of at this point at least two very famous actors-Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson, with a smaller role for Chloe Grace Moretz (Hit Girl of Kick-Ass). Does he use them well? There was probably less from Swinton that I expected, but then as usual, she only needs just a couple of scenes to steal a film almost effortlessly. Dakota Johnson was at this point now world famous for starring as female lead in the terrible but terribly successful Fifty Shades S&M film adaptations, her acting not really making any real significant impact. To be fair, I’ve seen her this and something else, and she can be quite good at times.
So while the original Suspiria pounded and screeched along almost non-stop in all the primary flashing colour as blood splattered and death screams wailed around until the credits this version moves along at a glacial pace but sitting through right along until the end does pay off as the last forty minutes or so are a big sequence of frightening shocks you probably will not be prepared for. There is a curious epilogue after the initial ending some viewers have questioned but it does make sense and adds to the muted though philosophical terror suggested by the large plot.
So this version of Suspiria may irritate, confuse or anger some horror fans. Some may find of extremely boring or tedious, too pretentious and long. What was my overall opinion after viewing the film?
This is an interesting and creative take on Argento’s previous classic using a basic dark fairy tale concept. I would possibly trim around twenty minutes from this new version but otherwise a slow moving psychological drama which builds toward an almost OTT modern Hammer Horror style bloodbath climax. Not for all horror film fans, but worth watching at least once I think, especially if you are a fan of the Argento original.
James Parsons is horror/SF author of horror novel Northern Souls, and the SF novels Orbital Kin and Minerva Century -all available now from all good bookshops and online in paperback and ebook formats.
So yes, I am a horror author and huge horror movie fan but these were two successful movies from recent times which I had not caught up with. I had noticed just how well they had done at cinemas and the reactions from many other fans over the last few years and in the last month or so I managed to watch both movies.
Had I been avoiding them? Was it because they seemed too derivative? Too much like many other classic horror flicks I already knew? Too Hollywood?
One major reason for avoiding this successful new horror series personally could be because it did look too slick. they may have seemed to have been far too consciously produced by a team of studio producers and accountants. It could be that at the time I was focusing more on my writing or looking to see more obscure older horror movies. There certainly has been a steady resurgence in popularity of horror movies in cinemas over the last decade, but I do think a number of studios and producers have jumped onto this and possibly churned out quite a few forgettable and ‘cookie-cutter’ predictable movies where there is not really point in going to see them if you’re seen more than say ten horror movies in your life. It may also have been that they were made and directed by James Wan, whom previously had given us the successful Insidious which I was not hugely blown away by and it seemed familiar and cheap or safe.
I had a few reasons or excuses but anyway, now I have seen both. What did I think?
So I tried to come to these movies with an open mind, ready to at least be entertained if nothing more. I did not know, or had forgotten the links to the Amityville movie/events and this did make it interesting thought as the first ,movie began I was sceptical. I was impressed by the production design, the vintage detail and locations. Wan is for sure a very talented director but I perhaps felt he was weaker as a writer. It moved along and did seem very much like the Amityville story, but thanks I would say to the direction and main actors involved including Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga I still wanted to see the movie continue. For me the difficulty was the really close similarity to the Poltergeist movies which have seen many times and really know very well. The use here though of the two paranormal investigators -the Warrens- and what they may have personally encountered with their experiences really brought me into the story. While I could not block out my memories of the Poltergeist films soon enough this first Conjuring movie really shakes and surprises the viewer. The special effects and not gory, blood splattered horror but extremely inventive and captivating. You see in this movie, things you wish you would have seen in Poltergeist or the Amityville movie but which those directors just could not do at the time due to lack of CGI effects or simply they were not creative enough. Also links to the Catholic church and Vatican with the Warrens and their work was interesting, and as many would say, just even seeing those characters working together against the powerful dark forces around this troubled family and home.
Onto the sequel, The Conjuring 2. Again this movie had been out for a few years now and I had forgotten much about it. I was surprised to see that the Wan had decided to take the story across the sea to right here in the UK. Would that be a terrible mistake? Why had they chosen to do this? I started to think from a filmmaking point of view, oh this will be for tax reasons, and cheap location shooting here in my land. No, that thankfully was not the reason (or not the top of the list perhaps). This time the story focused on events which took place in the late 1970’s and which have been previously documented and used in film and fiction over the years. So why use these events if many people were already possibly very familiar with them? Well, this being a sequel to a big successful American horror movie, the U.S. audiences may have barely known much at about the Enfield case as it was known.
I myself remembered as the movie moved along that I had seen a documentary a few years back which did cause quite a stir here when it was broadcast on terrestrial television which focused on the case, and may have played up elements of the story and events and exploited the facts and people involved with it. So here, we have the same events, though slightly loosely based with those event details but the Warren married paranormal investigators come along from the U.S. after appearing on a talk-show to explain and promote their work.
So as I watched the first film with the memories of the Poltergeist movies in the back of my mind, here I viewed the sequel with another strange sense of knowing, with the familiar and interesting characters placed into a known real location and famous paranormal case. We have very detailed London sets and locations, production design-furniture, clothes, music and more and then well, the accents. Yes are up and down, at times convincing at others very Dick Vandyke. Some of the English characters may be slightly stereotypical but for this being a big Hollywood movie, that was fairly predictable and they are really as bad as they could have been. Again though like the first movie what really works in this movie, is the direction, the special effects and the Warrens. It can seem like a very familiar ‘seen it all before’ supernatural poltergeist movie but when the ghost and evil spirits begin to kick off, it is a marvel to watch. The director Wan knows how to place the slightest little thing in a dark corner and let the viewer notice, and cut and edit just right to provoke a intense fear. This sequel does have probably a much more built up, even more dramatic third act end to the film. You possibly see it all coming, but it all plays out really well with great camera work and effects.
My issue may just be in where they added in a couple of extra spirits which maybe seemed too much or out of place. You may know what I am talking about. We know that The Conjuring movies have now set up various cues and elements for a number of spin-off movies and related movies such as The Nun and the Annabelle movies.
I think I can say now that I am glad I finally did get around to watching these two successful modern horror movies. They surprised me and gave me hope that Hollywood can still offer some good quality horror when we don’t always expect it.
James Parsons is the author the horror novel Northern Souls available now in paperback/ebook from all good bookshops. He has also published two science fiction novels-Orbital Kin and Minerva Century also available now.
Yes, it has taken me many months to check this one out finally. This was one of those cases where the film becomes a huge pop culture phenomenon. There was so much hype and praise around this film (particularly Toni Colette’s performance) which I could not escape.
What did I think? All hype, no substance? Actual nail-biting terror and chills?
*Spoilers ahead…
So I think I had been largely expecting a very emotional and psychologically affecting horror experience with this film. There have been a few along those lines over the last few years and this seem to fit in along with them from what I had heard. I really don’t think I had seen much of the film, probably only brief trailers but many months ago to the point where I did not remember much at all.
The film is a slow moving ride for sure. A family mourning the loss of a grandparent and trying to move on with their lives. For a good while other than one very brief spooky moment, it seems much like a sad television drama about loss. It changes a little when we see the teenage son go along to a house party, forced to take along his younger sister-a quite strange girl. While getting stoned she comes to him feeling not too good, not breathing well. He rushes her into his car, drives them out to the main road. She continues to shuffle, panic uncomfortably in the backseats. He swerves on seeing an animal on the road. The sister has her head out of the car window to get air…horrible, shocking occurrence. This event really punched me in the gut. Not some monster attack, or masked serial killer, no just a very tragic road accident. This really hits the family. The parents and the teenage son all react in their individual protracted emotional ways. Toni Collette soon takes part in a casual séance with a friend and this changes her completely.
From this point this film moves along more quickly, and becomes something more like familiar classic supernatural ghost/occult horror movies. It takes a while and parts of it feels much like the eerie moments of David Lynch films like Lost Highway, Blue Velvet-the long chilling quiet before a sudden graphic violent event hits us. These scenes do work very well as we have spend much time getting to know the individual family members, watching them cope with the loss of the grandparent and young sister and other underlying pent up emotions between them. The film eventually comes close to films such as Poltergeist, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist as the sinister occult forces take hold of Toni Colette when she begins to understand what is happening to the family.
The last ten or twenty minutes move along very fast, a whole parade of extremely dramatic and bloody events hitting us, the evil escalating within the cursed family home before a very elaborate ominous ending.
The films seems to have eventually divided some horror fans-being to slow and ‘boring’ to some, and to others one of the best horror films in years. The ending also seems to have rattled or irritated some viewers-too surreal or hokey? Too camp or Hammer horror while earlier the film had a balance of surprise sudden extreme terror and tragedy.
It could be that the film could have had some better editing all through, as it possibly does seem like two kinds of horror films cut together halfway through. While I am a fan of Hammer horror movies, the occult in horror, and more subtle psychological modern horror as well perhaps it could have chosen to be more one than both in the one film. this said, I have only watched it once, and in the last half hour I had many thoughts and feelings as the film reached its climax. It could be that it really is best the way it has been directed and editing all the way through. It certainly is a very affecting, emotionally intense modern horror and a real experience. I will have to watch it again soon I feel, even though I know that will have to be in the right state of mind for it.
James Parsons is a horror/scifi author- his debut horror novel Northern Souls is available now from all good bookshops in paperback/ebook. His two SF novels Orbital Kin & Minerva Century are also available now.
Here we are in February 2019 and I have now seen the recent movie remake of the Stephen King story. I finally saw it now after it has been named most financially successful horror at the box office of all time. What does that mean? Does it suggest that it is the perfect horror movie? The perfect adaptation of the King novel?
If you are a horror movie fan, you probably have seen this movie. Let’s remember that this 2017 adaptation is only the first in a two part adaptation. Will the next part be as good or even better?
Personally, I am most familiar with the 90’s tv mini series adaptation. I did not have sky tv so may have missed the first time it was available, but it when due to be shown on the BBC it seemed like a real big even. I recorded both parts on one VHS tape. I am fairly sure I must have seen the chilling clown face of Tim Curry’s Pennywise way before seeing the mini series. I as had most only seen many horror movies, a longer mini series format was quite different and had a larger story and more detailed characters to offer. Also it had that very infamous ending to the story which I believe many King fans disliked.
Cut to 2017 and we get this new take on one of the most well-known King tales. I’ve seen many photos and images of the Pennywise in magazines, online and on televisions since the movie was released and became a huge hit. I was fairly sure of what I was going to see creeping up and jumping out at me from the screen. I did hope there would be a lot more to surprise me when actually watching the movie, and thankfully that was the case.
What do we get from this version of the story? How is it different to the book and the previous mini series?
I have not read the book yet. Are you surprised? I think I have seen more King adapted movies than read his books but have been inspired as a horror writer by both. From what I know, the mini series from the early 90’s remained very close to the book. Originally the story sees the main group of young boys set in the late 1950’s experience trauma at the supernatural terrifying encounters with Pennywise the clown. The story jumps from then to the present day and back. This new version has the boys growing up in the 80’s and we saw many references to familiar pop culture-movies like A Nightmare On Elmstreet, mention of Michael Jackson, and the style brings to mind much loved movies from that decade such as Goonies, E.T., Stand by Me. It stars one of the lead young actors from top nostalgic Netflix phenomenon show Stranger Things which itself is inspired by these kinds of classic movies. We also get a new Beverley who looks very much like 80’s teen icon Molly Ringwald, so much that one of the boys in this new version makes a self-aware joke of the fact. So at first I may have groaned, as it seem that there is just far too much 80’s nostalgia going on right now, but it works out alright in this movie.
In style, this new version looks very slick, really well directed with great cinematography. It seems obvious they really wanted this movie to scare the pants off audiences in cinemas, and really feel like a ghost train or rollercoaster ride. It often does. I has a great opening sequence where we see little Georgie taken by Pennywise and the story moves along quickly introducing the young boys and Beverley with their individual personal troubles and growing pains. It may have felt a little strange to be watching a horror film with young kids as the main characters, but then this came hot on the heels of the popularity of Stranger Things it was not too bizarre. I was quite impressed by most of the young actors, each working well with their own parts and how they acted in the scenes confronting the supernatural terror or Pennywise.
The filmmakers did seem to want to give Pennywise some element of a backstory, placing him in some kind of reality which may or may be a good choice in the end.
It did feel similar to a number of these regular big budget event horror movies like The Nun or others of recent times, where they aren’t really serious horror films but just throw up a number of standard jump-scares one after another. These movies get very tiring and predictable in no time, but with this version of IT there was at least enough going on with the individual characters and their lives to keep the main story interesting between jump scares. Yes, the filmmakers obviously decided to make that one big difference to the 90’s mini series-this time it would keep you jumping and screaming almost every ten minutes or less. Most times, it works very well-this new Pennywise mutates and transforms into a whole collection of horrifically surreal nightmare monsters. Back in 1990 most of these visuals would not have been possibly until we have the CGI we take for granted now or if done in practical effects it may have taken another decade to make just this part of the new adaptation.
There are things shown in this version which may not have been in the original book or mini series or were previously only hinted at before. It could be that there is too much on screen this time. Where in the 90’s mini series we mostly only had a few brief moments of Pennywise and other shocks this time there are many thrilling and wildly animated scenes of twisted terror which may have taken things too far. Was it better when we only less of Pennywise previously? As far as real reliable ghoulish and engaging retro horrors go, this was a great movie. I guess we will see even more Pennywise in the next part due later this year and I look forward to seeing how famous adult actors chosen to portray the grown up kids deal with the return of the clown.
James Parsons is author of horror novel Northern Souls available now in paperback/ebook from all good bookshops and online. Also author of two SF novels Orbital Kin and Minerva century also available in various formats from shops and online now.
Somehow I did manage to avoid seeing this new horror film until I had read the book it is adapted from by the author Adam Nevill. I had recently met him around the time this was due out at cinemas and as I started reading more of his books (and became more of a fan) decided to hold back and experience the book first.
There are many times a film is adapted from a successful or well known book-for example Silence of the Lambs-and people always say ‘the book was better’ or ‘not as good as the book’ so I wanted to make it one of those time I actually read the book first.
I’ve read a few of his books now and they are always written well but I can see why The Ritual was chosen to be a film over some of the others. The story so obviously has that horror movie big screen atmosphere, could be made on a fairly low budget and possibly fits in with similar movies around these days.
Personally, I enjoyed the book a lot but over half way in there are some parts of the story and characters I may have changed or written differently. Some of those things were changed in the film-more on that later.
So just as a modern horror movie, even if you are not familiar with the book, how well does it succeed? The film sees a group of male friends who have known each other since university days get back together around a decade later after one of them has died. They decide to explore the wilds of Sweden on a hiking trip. It starts of well, we see how the friends act together, how the group works, hear about how their lives have changed over the years since university. Each friend is different, they have different outlooks on life, some more jaded, cynical than others, some experiencing divorce, career problems, regrets.
At the start we see them on the town back in the day, where two of the friends Luke and Rob go to a corner shop for more booze. There is a robbery in the shop, Luke survives but Rob dies. Throughout the film, we see Luke constantly thinks about how he didn’t save his friend, how it could have been him.
After a couple of days hiking the group gets lost, one injures his leg, slowing them down. They find some disturbing things in the woods around them. Settling down for a night in an abandoned cabin they encounter and experience more unexplainable things. Lost in the forest, with hardly any food or water and arguing over the direction something in out there making sounds, moving among the trees, waiting…
It sounds like a very simple idea for a film and well, it is but the direction and acting make it works really well. Rafe Spall in the lead role as Luke carries the film but the other actors support him well, their characters reacting to the terror around them well.
There are some humorous dark comic funny lines as the characters try to comprehend their situation and get through it. There are several graphic scenes which heighten the fear without being to overdone.
What many have been talking about since the film was released is the actual monster stalking them in the great forest. This thing is CGI but by god, it possibly is one of the most distinctive, haunting things in any horror movie for a long while. And also it actually is basically exactly how it is described in the original novel. Well done filmmakers.
Also the scenes where Luke has flashbacks or hallucinations to where he watched his friend die in the cornershop are filmed really well as he seems to sit in the forest where the cornershop appears among the deep trees before him or it is cut and edited well. Yes, some very good editing in this film as well.
So how different is the film to the book? Well it is mostly exactly the same until around the big turning point in the story, after half way in the book-
The acting and characters are very much as they are in the book but I did feel a good portion of them wandering the large deep and dark forest and their arguments and desperation and some of the detail of their individual characters was stripped down to some extent. I can understand that this regularly happens for book to film adaptations and it is not as bad an outcome as does often happen.
(Spoiler ahead?) Luke and Dom make it to some strange large cabin and meet strange locals.
In the book it turns out some nasty young black metal Satanists have been watching and hunting them down one by one. These Satanist black metal youths trap Luke in a room, with plans to sacrifice him. He eventually talks with the them, arguing with the leader about what life means, what lies in the forest, music, what the world gets wrong. Eventually Luke escapes after a long fight, flees and confronts the forest monster, drives away in a bloody and beaten state, smashes into it in a crazed detailed confrontation but only just survives to make it back to home.
The film still takes Luke to the cabin where the meets strange locals who worship the forest monster/Satanic beast, but the specific young black metal band characters of the book and the time Luke spends talking with them is cut out. The film shows only brief versions of these characters, but the mysterious old woman with them remains, feeding him up for the sacrifice. The final ending of Luke confronting the monster is changed, but is equally dramatic and possibly works better for the big screen or as a movie ending.
This film feels like some of the best old hammer horror films and The Wicker Man for modern times, with a hint of Blair Witch in there too. Very well made modern horror and I recommend it to all horror movie fans.
James Parsons is author of the horror novel Northern Souls available now from all good bookshops and online in paperback and ebook. He has also published two SF novels -Orbital Kin, Minerva Century also available now.
This film adaptation of the Stephen King novel has been out for a couple of years now but I recorded it from television around Halloween and watched it this weekend. I read the book a few years ago and did enjoy it. I found it interesting at the time as it was the first book from King after his serious accident which really caught my attention. By this time most people had small palm-sized cell phones, and so the concept of this story was something which could pull you in easily.
I had forgotten a lot of the main story and only really remembered the troubled production issues the film experienced and then later the mixed or negative responses once the film was released. Having watched it, I actually did not think it was too bad. I noticed that King co-wrote the screenplay and so must have wanted to be sure that it would transfer to the big screen in a way that he wanted to see when writing the book possibly.
So CELL is one of very many recent post-apocalyptic movies, and in a way sort of a zombie movie. The people who are changed by the sudden strange phone signal are not ever called zombies in the movie, but the occurrence is viewed as a kind of mass epidemic. When the book was published the film 28 Days Later had already started the ball rolling in pop culture bringing zombies back to the fore of horror. Since then and through the 00’s we’ve had so many riffs on the zombie/post-apocalyptic concept-extreme horror versions, parodies like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, huge Hollywood budget takes such as I Am Legend and World War Z and even the Godfather of Zombie movies Romero returned with Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead with varied results.
It is probably I Am Legend which CELL most closely resembles and possibly even works better than in some ways. While many people also dissed that Will Smith blockbuster movie of the classic and hugely influential genre novel, these movies both share a similar cinematic atmosphere of dread and modern unease. There is a fear of loneliness and technological paranoia through both movies, as well as a hint of post-911 terror anxiety.
I actually was big fan of I Am Legend, certainly the first half of the movie which is for the most part almost dialogue free and simply followed Will Smith through his lonely daily routine and we observe his isolated experience and the effects on his character.
With the movie CELL, within minutes the main character played by John Cusack joins with Samuel L Jackson and they move across the country to find his wife and son. They join with a small number of other desperate and surviving individuals on their journey. This tale being based on a King novel, is no simple zombie splatter flick-though the gore and visual effects are really up there along with some of the most realistic from Tom Savini-it sees the masses of people affected by the phone signal ‘evolving’ together acting almost like insects or animals.
I actually could have sat through a longer version of this film and that may have been due to the casting Cusack or Jackson but also the different take on zombie concept. I thought it possibly could have done a lot more. We are at a time when one of the most popular shows on the planet is The Walking Dead, which is all about a small group of distinctive survivors working together against the zombie masses on a daily basis. I am not really a fan of the show (I know, sorry people!) but still do like zombie and post-apocalyptic or dystopian films and novels which have something different to offer.
There were some moments where I did want to yell at the screen ‘Don’t touch that phone!’ or ask why are they going in that building, and some characters and scenes which seemed a little lazy or predictable. It does features some elements which are quite familiar to other King books or films such as The Stand but I still continued watching until the end. Not a perfect movie, but not really as bad as you may have heard either.
James Parsons is a UK author of horror novel Northern Souls- available now as paperback/ebook from all good bookshops and online. He has previously published two science fiction novels as James E. Parsons, Orbital Kin and Minerva Century also available as paperback,hardback, ebook from bookshops and online now.
Origin stories-who needs them? When thinking of iconic horror monsters do we really want some explanation about where they came from or what created them?
Whatever our opinion we have had a few of these over the last decade or more. I was surprised when this film was announced so soon after the Texas Chainsaw3D film, and that it was not another sequel but a prequel ‘origin story’ of the main iconic monster of the long lasting horror franchise. In the past, often against the wishes or interest of loyal fans we have had hints at the origins of modern horror monsters such as Freddy Krueger of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, flashbacks encounters of the past life of Pinhead from Hellraiser, and more. In my mind the most recent and probably unnecessary prequel origin tale for one of the most iconic modern monsters was the Hannibal Rising movie which looked at the early years of Hannibal Lecter of the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal films. It was closely adapted from the short novel written by the great Thomas Harris, who created the character but it did not feel entirely called for. Did that movie take away too much of the mystery from the iconic monster that is Hannibal Lecter?
Would this new Texas Chainsaw prequel be just as unnecessary? Or would it give the iconic voiceless chainsaw wielding fiend a fresh and solid layer of realistic character?
It came free onto Netflix a few days ago so now was the time to find out I decided.
I had already heard and read many very mixed reviews and thoughts on this slightly controversial addition to the Chainsaw series. Leatherface is now up there with Dracula, Pinhead, Freddy, Phantom of the Opera and other legendary horror monsters. Many may hold the view that we don’t want to know too much about them-who they used to be, where they came from, what made them evil or unstoppable killers. The less we know, the more they may seem like some mysterious force of nature, a kind of evil energy or lifeforce.
This movie goes right back to the very start. Back to the Sawyer house out in the open fields of America. We have seen different versions of the Chainsaw family through the various sequels-there has never really been any clear explanation about why sometimes there seem to be a couple of older brothers with Leatherface, different mother figures, sometimes extra extended family members other times only one or two others. In this early beginning the story gives us a Sawyer family with a couple of older grown brothers, one simple chubby young brother, and the young Leatherface character now called Jed. The mother in this version is played by the excellent Lili Taylor, who continues to seem to get better with every film she appears in over the years. At first I thought she was only going to be in the short opening sequence of the film, but she appears throughout as it moves along. Young Jed seems to witness regular violent scenes and torture measured out by his family on unsuspecting people or police prying into their family business. The local sheriff is played by Stephen Dorff and we see that as in the 2003 remake the Texas police can be expected to be cruel and corrupt figures almost as violent as the Sawyer family. Young Jed is taken away after Sheriff Hartman comes in believing they were the reason his daughter died.
Cut to a few years later and young Jed is in some kind of mental institution for young offenders. The Sawyer mother comes to attempt to take back Jed (also now named Bud) but ends up starting a riot where the young offenders escape, cause violent bloody havoc, Jed and some others go on the run taking a young nurse who had only just starting working there. She had seen that while Jed seemed a quiet and dangerously strong young man he did seem to have a kind heart in some way. She is taken hostage along with one of the more sane and decent young men and Jed by two others who will do anything to get away. This young couple in charge have no morals and the film almost seems to morph into Natural Born Killers at this point, only set in the late 1950’s. It becomes a bloody road trip escape movie, where we seem to want the decent young man and pretty innocent nurse to escape together. Young Jed is silent and exploited by the crazed duo in charge as the Sheriff and police soon pick up their trail.
When you have known and watched the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for a very long time (originally seeing as a banned copied VHS) the slick, Hollywood level cinematography and direction, costume and light and more take it many miles away from that original place of fear. But we have had several sequels already over the years and one prequel as well which only when so far back, not to where Leatherface was a small child as in this film. Do we know too much about the character now for him to really scare us? In a sense the discontinuity of the Sawyer family through the series does possibly help add a level of continued ambiguity for fans. This is an origin story-but can we really trust the truth of it? What is the real Sawyer Chainsaw family? Who is the real Leatherface and does this film really tell us the truth?
It does throw us a twist in the story after the halfway point which makes it interesting. I really did not expect it. Maybe I was just tired or liked the idea. You then want to go back and consider the film again and the characters up to that point. Well, the people who like the film. So it is probably true that it lacks a strong consistency all through the film with the narrative-is it a horror film? a road movie? a tragic romance? It certainly is not just a simple straight ahead brutal murder splatter flick all way the through like most of the other Chainsaw movies and as most fans may have wanted to see.
I have to say that the acting does on the whole carry the film, especially Dorff as the Sheriff and Lili Taylor as Ma Sawyer. She could even get her own solo movie I would be happy. Some people moaned that Leatherface doesn’t even used a chainsaw or wear a mask until the end of the movie but well that surely makes sense in this case. It incorporate those elements into the story so that they make sense in the end and it is a tragic start to one of the most well known modern iconic horror monsters.
Like the Hannibal Rising book/movie which reveals much about the terrible childhood traumas which shaped the grown killer years down the line, this film shows us a number of things which affected the mind and life and outlook of Leatherface. Can we accept possibly knowing this much about a previously very mysteriously powerful monster?
A number of specific scenes and shots clearly set up the identity of Leatherface and suggest why he wears a skin mask of his victims, why he kills, his lack of voice and interestingly his confused identity. It even touches on his conflicted gender perception at the end previously explored to mixed opinion in the forth film.
Is this a great new addition to the Texas Chainsaw series? It may not have the usual terrifying rollercoaster nightmare experience of most of the movies in the series but it does have some good acting (which doesn’t always appear in the Chainsaw movies) and a number of very graphic moments which will please many of the bloodthirsty Chainsaw fans out there.
James Parsons is author of the horror novel Northern Souls out now in paperback and ebook from all good bookshops and online. He also has two science fiction novels-Orbital Kin and Minerva Century available paperback/Hardback/ebook as well published as James E. Parsons.
genrerama 