FILM: The Raven (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I think I got drawn with a curiosity of all things Edgar Allan Poe after watching Fox's The Following.

What's it all about?

A woman and her daughter are founded murdered in 19th century Baltimore in a fashion that echoes one of Edgar Allan Poes' macabre literary works. Inspector Fields (Luke Evans) ropes the eccentric Poe (John Cusack), now a drunk forgotten writer struggling to regain his acclaimed status in the literary world, into his investigation to catch the killer.

Should you watch it?
I almost felt as disinterested in writing this review as I did watching the film so this will a short one. The Raven is an average film that never delivers anything above typical cat and mouse serial killer mediocrity. Director James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) manages to create some darkly Gothic settings but it's all shamefully wasted as the narrative never gets its teeth into the audience. When the serial killer was revealed, it lacked any twist, shock or suspense of any form and this sums up the film's general lack of intrigue. While reading other reviews, I've seen mentions to Se7en and when you hold The Raven up against David Fincher's great serial killer film, you realise how wasteful The Raven is considering the Gothic setting and characters involved.


Leads John Cusack and Luke Evans perform admirably and the producers deserve a gold star for not casting Johnny Depp as Poe (shudder). If you are watching to see Alice Eve, you may be disappointed unless her being trapped in a coffin for the majority of the film is your idea of fun.

TV: The Walking Dead (S3) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
The second season of The Walking Dead was often criticised but despite its weaknesses I still enjoyed watching it and there was never going to be any doubt that I would be tuning in to see where Rick and co ended up after abandoning the farm.

What's it all about?
After leaving the relative sanctuary of the farm and cleaning house with regards to Shane, Rick leads the group onwards through Georgia, ransacking house after house of food, weapons and the inevitable zombie squatters. That is until they come across an abandoned prison, where similar to Hershel's farm, they decided to set up camp. Meanwhile, the identity of Andrea's saviour is revealed and the pair travel to Woodbury, a safe barracaded town of residents led by 'The Governor' (David Morrissey). 

Should you watch it?
The first thing that struck me during the season premiere was how skilled and comfortable the group have become in dealing with zombies. There has clearly been some time pass between seasons and in order to survive the group have become deadlier and more immune to the fear of zombies, especially in small numbers in open spaces but I found that in doing so, I didn't feel the fear, suspense or shock that I previously did either.

Perhaps sensitive to criticism of the slow nature of the last season, some pretty major events occur within the first four episodes this time around, reducing the number of the prison inhabitants by two and introducing (and in one case reintroducing) the residents of Woodbury to our screens. The show definitely improves with the introduction of Woodbury's de facto chief, The Governor. Already a merciless leader with some disturbing but well meant secrets, he becomes an increasingly violent madman after clashing with Michonne and the character becomes the driving force of the reminder of the season's storyline.

The story was again bogged down in places by frustrating character development. Rick and Lori's domestic issues, Rick's mental breakdown and Glenn and Maggie's issues post-Woodbury kidnap all being examples of the show not being at it's best.

 

Eye'll be seeing you.....

The season is action packed, by the end zombies only really appeared as extras outside the prison perimeter, as the story focused solely on the impending battle between The Governor's Woodbury and Rick's prison. Caught in the middle of the two was Andrea, who had the most frustrating character storyline of the season and overtook Lori and Carl (no mean feat) as the show's most annoying character. Just as the season finale looked set to reveal the victor once and for all, it didn't. No cliffhanger, no nothing, the finale only serving to give polite notice that the personal duel had been postponed to next season.

With at least it's third showrunner taking over the helm for season four, The Walking Dead will need to hit the ground running next time around.

FILM: Piranha 3D (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
Because sometimes you just need some low brow, tongue-in-cheek horror to brighten up your day.

What's it all about?
It's spring break at Lake Victoria and the small town has been invaded by the stereotypical masses of drunken frat-boys and bikini-clad college girls. Unfortunately for them, their lakeside debauchery coincides with the release of thousands of super aggressive prehistoric piranhas into the water from an underground lake, opened up after millions of years by an earthquake. Elisabeth Shue stars as the local sheriff and Jerry O'Connell plays a pornographer out filming on the lake, both caught up in the horror.  

Should you watch it?
As long as you can handle the deliberately gratuitous gore, boobs, more gore and more boobs (the things I go through for the purposes of a review!),  Piranha 3D is a hilarious and enjoyable B-movie horror. It is probably the goriest film I have ever seen, but whereas the likes of Hostel cross in to  'gorno' territory, director Alexandra Aja provides horror and violence of the comedy kind.

Aja sacrifices a few lone lake inhabitants over the first half of the action and moving underwater shots suggest that no-one is safe. However, once Sheriff Forrester (Shue) discovers the truth behind the random attacks, Aja releases the army of piranhas on the partying spring break masses in a ten minute scene that can only be described as total carnage, with a body count that makes Rambo look like Disney. Some of the deaths are so hilarious, they must be seen to be believed.

Elisabeth Shue is the film's hero, Ving Rhames barely appears and Christopher Lloyd adds to the general craziness with his small part, but it's O'Connell's crazed, coked up adult film director who is most memorable.

The piranha: eats bikini-clad spring breakers  

Although it owes a lot to Jaws and the original parody Piranha, Aja ensures that Piranha 3D is it's own beast (at one point the music does sound similar to John Williams' theme though!). 

FILM: The Birds (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I watched this as part of my voyage through some of Hitchcock's more famous films.

What's it all about?
San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) visits an isolated Californian coastal town to track down bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). What she doesn't bargain for is the town being violently attacked by masses of birds.

Should you watch it?
I hadn't even heard of The Birds until a few weeks ago, let alone just never watched it. Now I am glad I have. In The Birds, Hitchcock created a really suspenseful 'monster' film, not with aliens or the like, but with the common bird fulfilling the 'monster' role. Using vast numbers of birds in some excellent shots, he skilfully gives the bird masses, in particular the crows, a menacing nature you would not think possible.

The attack scenes vary from somewhat camp and over the top to terrifying, think of the birds pecking through the front door in the final attack. By choosing not to use a score, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense as the audience listens out for the crowing warning sounds of another attack.

Imagine the droppings

Underneath the bird attacks, the central story passes along a little slowly to begin with, serving only to get the protagonists in place, but I guess this, and the acknowledgements that something seems amiss with the local bird population, only builds up the suspense for what is to come later.

That the bird attacks are never explained only adds to the terror, was it the lovebirds, or was the terrified lady right, was it Melanie herself?

An accomplished horror based on a simple idea.

FILM: Prometheus (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Being a big fan of the Alien franchise I was excited about seeing this film as soon as I heard it was being developed.

What's it all about?

Prometheus sees director Ridley Scott return to the universe of his sci-if phenomenon Alien in the form of a loose prequel. A team of scientists searching for the beginning of human life follow directions they believe are from their creators and funded by the Weyland Corp. head to a far away unknown planet. Here they find clues not only to the origins of human life but the origins of a familiar foe.

Should you watch it?

Prometheus is full of familiar characteristics from the Alien franchise, androids, stasis, mysterious eggs and corrosive blood. Although unoriginal, these facets are not unwelcome and made me feel right back at home within the Alien world.
The script deals with questions of creationism and occasions is a little pretentious and self-serving but this sets it apart from being a straight-up sci-fi horror. Speaking of questions, the script also leaves plenty unanswered at the end, either intentionally (and hopefully) for a sequel or through failings in the writing. I expected no less with one of the brains behind Lost involved in the writing. The acting is great, Michael Fassbender gives a dead pan cold peformance as he android David and others including Idris Elba, Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron deliver as well.

Didn't they learn anything from Alien?

I have seen plenty of negative reviews for Prometheus and I disagree with the majority, although admitedly the unanswered questions are a bug I seem to bare more than others. I really enjoyed the film, lets just be happy we are seeing more of Ridley Scott's Alien mythology.

FILM: Apollo 18 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Being a bit of a sci-fi and closet horror fan, I was suckered in by the trailer and the interesting premise of a disastrous secret moon landing ending the NASA Apollo missions.

What's it all about?
Apollo 18 is a found-footage type film marketed as being made up of footage recovered from a top secret NASA moon landing in 1974. The Apollo 18 mission is cancelled publicly, however the mission secretly still takes place under stewardship of the Department of Defence. One astronaut stays in orbit while the other two land on the moon and begin their mission of deploying detectors to monitor Soviet activity.

Should you watch it?
First of all, Apollo 18 owes a lot to other found-footage films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. One difference however, is that the events are shown from a variety of cameras, handheld, inside the lunar module and from cameras on the outside of the module. The editing is very choppy and often switches between the various cameras as you imagine a security guard would. While this never gives the audience a chance to rest as you find yourself scoping out all the shots for any movement it becomes tiresome and interrupting. Coupled with the 'interference' to the footage and the grainy nature of some the shots, its all a bit too realistic but difficult to watch. The same applies to majority of the dialogue, radio transmissions are authentic but not employed with the viewer in mind.

The director creates suspense on occasions by using the vast and isolated yet claustrophobic setting of the moon and also the cramped safety of the lunar module coupled with a cabin fever mentality. I won't deny that on occasions the film succeeded in building uneasiness and made me jump a few times. The technique of using intermittent light flashes to illuminate pitch black environments, in Apollo 18's case moon craters, has been used previously in Saw and is not employed anywhere near as well here.

The main thought I had following the film's ending, which I won't spoil, is how on Earth (no pun intended) was the footage found? Based on this it had me thinking, was the found-footage approach really necessary? Did cost negate a traditional approach? Films like Alien prove that suspenseful sci-fi horrors work minus the novelty.

Will appeal far more to horror genre fans than traditional sci-fi fans.

FILM: The Thing (8/10)

In 1979, Ridley Scott released Alien. Three years later followed John Carpenter's The Thing. These two films are often considered seminal releases in the history of all things sci-fi, alien and horror. I am a huge Alien fan but The Thing has always slipped below my radar until now.


The 'Thing' itself is an alien released from its frozen tomb in Antarctica by a group of Norwegian scientists capable of taking on the appearance of those it infects.


Carpenter regular Kurt Russell leads the nearby US research base that is infiltrated by the alien when a huskie arrives from the Norwegian base. As the base comes under attack, the scientists struggle to control the spread of infection and paranoia sets in as they realise that anyone could be 'the thing' waiting to attack. The alien in The Thing is clearly intelligent as it bides its time hiding amongst the team sabotaging attempts to flush it out rather than revealing itself and taking the team head on.

In comparison with modern horror films, Carpenter doesn't rely on jumpy moments and creates a suspenseful atmosphere using the isolation of location, paranoia of the group and Ennio Morricone's haunting score. That said he is not afraid of revealing the alien in its natural form and The Thing contains some famously iconic scenes, most notably when Norris's decapitated head sprouts a giant tongue and legs and scuttles around. The special effects still look good to this day, however if you consider Ridley Scott's fantastic alien pre-dates The Thing by three years the aliens do not appear quite as polished.

It is worth mentioning that Carpenter decided to cast no female actors, something that a studio would surely not allow these days.


Having watched The Thing now, I see no reason to disagree with the film's seminal status in the sci-fi horror genre. A must-see film and a lesson in claustrophobic paranoia and suspense.

FILM: Devil (7/10)

Economical horror with a promising premise which delivers in part. A familiar almost Agatha Christie who-dun-it story is given a modern day setting with spiritual undertones.

The claustrophobic setting, sound effects and sharp editing create a succession of low-budget scares, although the turn of events become slightly repetitive each time the lights go out. The use of elevator CCTV footage provides some variety to the action and builds suspense as the audience are made to feel equally as helpless as the rescuers as they see the action play out in front of them. 

A potential step back towards form for producer M. Night Shyamalan.