Author: fenrisfil

Gladiator II (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Somewhere near the top of the list of sequels I never expected to see is Gladiator II. But Ridley Scott making a return to the Roman Colosseum was also something I wasn’t going to miss, so here we are. The unexpected sequel see’s Scott return as director but this time around the story is by Peter Craig and David Scarpa instead of David Franzoni. Since most of the characters from the original (And sadly two of the actors) are dead, the only returning ones are Connie Nielsen as “Lucilla” and Derek Jocobi as “Senator Gracchus”. They are joined by Paul Mescal as “Lucius/The Barbarian”, Denzel Washington as “Macrinus”, and Pedro Pascal as “Marcus Acadius”. Dual Emperors Geta and Caracalla are played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger respectively. John Mathieson returns to cinematography duties. Hanz Zimmer however is replaced by regular Scott colaborator Harry Gregson-Williams for the soundtrack.

Set sixteen years after the events of the original, the movie starts with the roman siege of Numidia and the capture of Roman refugee Lucius Verus (Living under the name “Hanno”). Lucius is enslaved and brought to Rome to be a Gladiator. Sensing something in him he can use to further his ambitions the stablemaster, Macinius promises him revenge against the general that took his city and killed his wife. Things are more complicated than they seem though. That general, Aracius, is actually a good man and married to Lucius’ mother Lucilla. Lucius is actually the heir to Rome and was sent away to protect him when he was a child. Sensing an opportunity, Macrinus tries to manipulate all the sides against each other in an attempt to seize power from the dual Emperors Geta and Carcalla.

The Gates Of Hell Are Open Night And Day

One of the things that made Gladiator so compelling was that it was actually a pretty straight forward yet compelling plot driven by superb ground breaking action and incredible performances from top tier actors, many of which were at their peak (Notable Russel Crowe). It wasn’t a perfect movie, but issues of historical inaccuracies felt unimportant next to such a triumphant performance. This was all wrapped up in one of the best movie soundtracks of all time. So we knew when they announced the sequel there were some pretty big boots to fill. Sequels rarely ever live totally up to the original, though the audiences are wise enough not to expect them to. But it is impossible not to draw comparisons especially given the trend of sequels to constantly reference the originals. This is even more of an issue for those late sequels released decades after the original.

Overcoming that comparison is where this movie fails. As I mentioned, the original had a straight forward plot. A great wrong was done to Maximus. He was betrayed and the rest of the movie is his journey towards righteous vengeance. The story for Gladiator II seems set up to be both a parallel and a subversion of this story. It’s not a bad plot, but it is far more complicated than Gladiator and this reduces the emotional impact of the story. It is a story that would be better suited to a TV series than a film. On top of this, frankly the acting is nowhere near as good. Again, it’s not actually bad and Denzel steals the show, but he had no real competition. The original had Richard Harris, Oliver Reed, Joaquin Phoenix and Russel Crowe all weaving gold. Here Denzel is largely propping the rest of the cast up.

Smooth The Descent

Gladiator 2 has another issue. Creating a story that makes sense as a follow up to one where protagonist and antagonist both died. They just about succeed. Some consider there to be a few too many callbacks, but it makes sense in context and to justify it as a sequel. Scott has taken a lot of liberties with history here, but then he did with the first film too. The story utilizes historical facts and characters, but twists them to fit his tale. It mostly works at least as an alternative history. The movie steals much of the music from the soundtrack of the original too, but this is a positive. The score for the original is famous and memorable. Referencing such music instantly evokes an emotion response. It is a reference that works and doesn’t get in the way of storytelling. Instead it enhances it.

What I can say about the plot is that it is very Roman! Remember all that political maneuvering and backstabbing from Game of Thrones? The Romans invented that. So while I do consider the plot overly complicated for an emotional character driven action fantasy, it entirely fits a story set in Rome. The characters are a bit more of a let down. Outside of the protagonist none of the Gladiators really feel like full characters. The same goes for the Roman senate and the military. Instead the film effectively hyper focuses on three characters: Lucius, Lucilla and Macrinus. Everyone else around them are pretty much just extras including the duel Emperors Geta and Caracalla and Pablo Pascal’s Marcus Acacius. None of them offer anything that memorable in their performance. Pascal seems to be trying, but the audience isn’t really given any reason to care about his character.

Easy Is The Way

Last but not least, let’s talk action. This was a key aspect of the original and it was always going to be vital here too. In this instance the movie doesn’t really make you feel the stakes as strongly, but the spectacle is certainly there. Of all the movies aspects this comes closest to the quality of the original. The only problem is this is 24 years later and we’ve seen a lot of spectacle since then. Indeed just recently the TV series “Those About To Die” had the Colosseum filled with water. The set piece in that series was a simple execution and not a battle, but it does make the spectacle feel less ground breaking. Still, I was happy with the quality of the action and the effects. It was as good as I hoped.

So on to the verdict then. Ultimately this is a good film, but it’s not a classic like the original. If it was a stand alone movie it wouldn’t make my physical media collection but as a sequel it is just about good enough for a double bill. While the story is a little over complicated and the acting and characters a little under whelming, I was reasonably gripped for the duration (Two and a half hours, about the same as the first film). Denzel Washington does a good job of propping everyone else up and is the glue that keeps this warship sailing. It all just about works. It just doesn’t excel. So I’m giving this a firm 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Human Desire (1954)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I review a lot less film noir in November than I do horror in October so I have far fewer traditions to revisit. One I do seem to have managed is to squeeze in a movie by one of my favourite directors, Fritz Lang. So this year I’m checking out Lang’s subversive 1954 noir “Human Desire”. The movie brings back together Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame from Lang’s “The Big Heat” (1953), one of my personal favourites. The cast is filled out with support from Broderick Crawford and Peggy Maley. The script is from Alfred Hayes (Not the WWF interviewer from the 80’s) and based (loosely) on the novel “La Bête humaine” by Émile Zola. Burnett Guffey provides cinematography.

Jeff Warren (Ford), a Korean War veteran has just returned home and resumed his old job as a train engineer driving streamliners. While on a train travelling to Chicago he comes across Vicki (Grahame) in a state over something and spends some time with her. The pair obviously have chemistry, however later he finds out she is married to a work colleague Carl (Crawford). There is more to it though, since Carl just murdered someone on that train out of jealousy. Vicki was sent to distract Jeff so Carl could slip past him unnoticed. Jeff starts to see Vicki regularly and becomes infatuated with her, spurning the advances of the far more wholesome Jean (Maley). Vicki meanwhile sees Jeff as as her opportunity to get away from her abusive husband or rather do away with him….

Deceiver’s Descent

The combination of Lang/Ford/Grahame is one guaranteed to bring edginess and intensity to any movie. It worked superbly in The Big Heat, but this is a very different kind of story. The great thing with combo is it feels explosive, like anything can happen at any moment. Where Hitchcock can be subtle, Lang is persistent and aggressive. Ford meanwhile is one of the most intense performers of his day (Or any day) and Grahame’s is great at not just intense but also unhinged. If “Harley Quinn” was even a thing in the 50’s, she would have fit the role perfectly. All this gives the film a great deal more impact than the fairly bland story itself could hope for.

This could be seen as a subversion of the traditional noir femme fatale but not in the way it first seems. Although Vicki is ultimately unable to corrupt Jeff and bend him to her will, that’s not really the story here. Ford’s character is able to walk away from the usual film noir spiral of self destruction, but Vicki is not. The truth is the subversion is that Vicki is the real protagonist. This is her story and like most noir protagonists it is the story of her bringing about her own undoing. The movie also has a sub plot involving good gal Jean and her crush on Jeff, but this side is far less interesting than trying to figure Vicki out.

Everyone Has A Dark Side

Despite all this talk of intensity it’s worth noting that Human Desire is actually a heavily toned down adaptation of “La Bête humaine”. In the novel (Spoilers!), pretty much everyone is a murderer and pretty much everyone ends up dying. A more accurate version would have had Jeff as a psychopath rapist and even sweet innocent Jean turning into a mass murderer by orchestrating a train disaster. It’s safe to say the Hay’s code wouldn’t have any of that. So instead Jeff and Jean and basically good. Vicki on the other hand is probably more innocent in the novel. These changes are dramatic, but it is a very loose adaptation and it does work better than a more direct approach probably would have.

Story aside, the film features great cinematography showing off the railroad in the 1950’s. This makes the movie a bit of a time capsule allowing us to glance into days gone. It should be mentioned none of this really adds much to the movie and with the rail disaster removed from the story the trains only really factor in to the story as the location of the initial murder. Still, there is nothing wrong with a scenic backdrop. Overall, this is a fairly straight forward noir ont he surface with a few surprises up it’s sleeves and great performances from the two leads, especially Grahme. Not one of Lang’s best, but a very solid outing none the less. This is a solid 6.5/10. If you like Lang or either of the leads, you’ll enjoy it.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Suspicion (1941)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For the second noir review of “Noirvember” I’m watching a Hitchcock classic, “Suspicion” from 1941. Because of the nature of this story and the fact it is 83 years old, this review will have spoilers, so be warned. Suspicion is based on Francis Iles’s novel Before the Fact (1932). With a screenplay from Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison (Hitchcocks P.A.), and Alma Reville (Hitchcock’s wife). The movie stars Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant with support from Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty, Isabel Jeans, Heather Angel, and Leo G. Carroll. Whitty was also in my last Film Noir review “My Name is Julia Ross”. That has no relevance here but it does link my november noir reviews!

After a chance encounter on a train “Johnnie Aysgarth” (Grant) begins a romantic relationship with “Lina McLaidlaw” (Fontaine). The pair marry and Lina discovers things about johnnie she never suspected. Despite his charm Johnnie is a gambler and struggling both financially and with his addiction. He is sometimes honest with Lina, but often tries to hide the truth from her. A lot of these truths she learns from Johnnie’s good natured friend ‘Beaky’ (Nigel Bruce) who it seems is very bad at keeping quiet. When Lina’s father dies and doesn’t leave her money Johnnie is clearly disappointed and begins to plan an ambitious real estate venture with Beaky. Lina becomes concerned that Johnnie is planning to murder Beaky and not long after Beaky does die under suspicious circumstances. After finding out about a life insurance policy in her name, Lina becomes concerned she will be next.

Audience Manipulation

As a story this has perhaps not aged that well. Subversion is so common these days it doesn’t really subvert anything, As a result the swerve at the end does have that much of an impact. Interestingly this is the second Hitchcock movie in a row staring Joan Fontaine that totally altered the context of a story by changing the ending from the source material. The previous movie was “Rebecca” (1940), Both stories were effectively re-written to make the male lead no longer a murderer. This may seem a bit of an anti-climax to modern audiences. The thing with Hitchcock though is it was always more about the suspense than the story’s conclusion. Rebecca’s change was down to the Hays code, but Suspicion’s change is more up for debate. Hitchcock claimed studio interference in later year, but some have suggested this was what he always intended.

Regardless of intent, this is a showcase of Hitchcock’s ability to build suspense. It helps that he has two talented actors for his leads that he works well with. Fontaine was nominated for an Oscar for “Rebecca”, but this time around she would actually win the award. Grant made four films with Hitchock, culminating in one of Hitchcocks most famous films “North by North West” in 1959. Suspicion was the first of this run, but clearly the director felt he could work with him. Both perform their role perfectly. The key here is the film needs to make the audience suspicious of Johnnie’s motives and intentions. Since the movie concludes with a suggestion of innocence (With some wriggle room), the atmosphere has to be created indirectly. Some of that comes from the directing, some from Fontaine’s expression of anxiety and some form Grant’s careful glances and tone of voice.

Swerve In The Road

I mentioned the ending movie does leave wriggle room. The reason is that the way it is directed leaves you never entirely sure. You don’t really know that Johnnie is trying to save Lina in the car. You don’t even know what he was trying to do on the night they first met. Most of all though, Lina never consumes the drink that Johnnie brings her, after she found out that he knows about the untraceable poison. It is visible the following. Hitchcock uses a light to give the drink an ethereal look when it is presented and we all know what it was meant to suggest. In the novel, this drink is poisoned and Lina drinks it knowing that, because she loves Johnnie that much. Officially of course Johnnie is not a killer, but the movie leaves the suspicion.

That all said, this isn’t the most interesting Hitchcock story and without Johnnie being a murderer it really is a story about nothing more than suspicion. The actual events are somewhat peripheral and the ending feels a bit on the swift side. None of that makes it objectively bad, but it made it less entertaining for me personally. The big problem here is the movie is really quite subtle, so I can see some viewers simply being bored. I have mixed feelings, in some ways it is a masterclass and in others it is really quite empty. Not Hitchcock’s best, but still a very solid 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) – A Film Maker On Trial

Posted on by fenrisfil

I didn’t intend to review or write about this movie (Largely because it came out in October, my horror month). However, I’ve heard so much nonsense about this film that I felt an article is needed. To do that means spoilers. So only read beyond this opening is you’ve watched the movie or don’t intend to. If you are just after a review, I’ll provide a quick one for you in the next paragraph before i move on to the various debates this film seems to have inspired on the internet.

This is a gritty neo-noir drama wearing the mask of a comic book franchise. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that has seen the first movie. But if you go into it thinking that the end of the previous movie was Arthur Fleck fully becoming the character from the comics, you will be disappointed! Also, this is a musical. There is a purpose to it, but it frankly wasn’t necessary and adds very little. The movie is however well made. Technically this is a good movie. That said, a mix of gritty depressing drama, show tunes and comic books is a meal most people won’t be able to keep down. I’d give it a 6/10, but only recommend it to fans of depressing neo-noir.

Joker Derangement Syndrome

Now, on to the debates those. It’s worth noting 99% of those debates are being spread by people that haven’t seen the film. Much of it is reacting to memes, some of which are horrendously inaccurate or outright lies. It is a bizarre torrent of overreactions and the only comparable reaction in movies is the one for the first movie. This is coming from a different group than the first, but it’s just as wild. Instead of claiming the director made a movie to inspire “Incels”, these people are claiming the director deliberately made a movie to punish fans for liking his last one. Both views are delusional. If only there was a term that applies to two people or groups sharing a common delusion… Hmm…..

I doubt the movie was intended to be politically divisive. Somehow it ended up like that, but perhaps that is more about how society is these days than anything to do with the movie. I try as best as I can not to get into politics on this blog, but it isn’t easy. It gets harder with every year and that just shows how much we really need stories that can bring us together instead of divide us. This wasn’t going to be the movie to do it though. It’s far too easy to project your own fear, anxiety and anger on to this movie. The Joker ultimately represents chaos and that is something we all relate to these days.

Question One – Was Arthur consistent to the first film?

Arthur is a mentally ill, run down, abused man with a low IQ. That was all in the first film. At the conclusion. he has his moment of bloody triumph, but he didn’t magically turn into another person. That doesn’t happen in real life. Arthur has put on a persona and has been encouraged to do this by the public that reacted to his subway killings. They then react to his public execution of the talk show host that mocked him in the same way. But, Arthur got caught. He didn’t plan for an escape.Indeed he originally planned to kill himself, not the host. This is a man pushed too far, not the clown prince of crime.

People reacted to this on air killing. It turned Arthur as “Joker” into an icon. The figurehead of a violent revolution. He revelled in that. But… that fades. After months out of the limelight he’s back to being Arthur. It’s not an unexplained character regression like Han Solo in The Force Awakens. It’s a regression that clearly would have happened. Its also important to note that Arthur is not really a bad person. He’s not cruel, he’s not sadistic, he is not a psychopath. Arthur doesn’t actually crave the chaos, he is a victim of it, A man that snapped in the face of it. When he he is confronted by the damage his Joker persona has done to innocent people, he willingly gives it up. This makes total sense.

Question Two – Was it an FU to the audience?

Perhaps the most unhinged claim about this film is that it was somehow an attack on the fans. The theory goes that Todd Phillips was upset about his risky neo-noir Joker movie making over a billion dollars. Apparently he was so upset by this that he deliberately set out to make the sequel as big a financial disaster as possible. This is quite clearly ridiculous. One could perhaps argue it was an FU to the studio for forcing him to make a sequel (figuratively speaking). But even then, it was an FU because he made a sequel consistent to his own vision, without compromise. He did not deliberately make a bad film or one designed to attack anybody. But he did take a big pay off to make this sequel and we should remember, he didn’t originally intend to do one.

Whether the studios wanted him to make the sequel more of a comic book superhero movie or perhaps even a Bonnie and Clyde type of film is a mystery. Whatever the may have wanted, they signed off on what they got. They gave Phillips carte blanche to do what he saw fit. Indeed he refused help from the studio. Whatever else this movie is, it is one mans vision. The crazy idea that this movie was somehow made to “Own the Chuds” is just as deranged as the idea the first one was meant to inspire “Incels” to do mass shootings. This isn’t some kind of psi-ops. It’s a creative director taking risks. It paid off once, it failed the second time. The odd thing is both sides politically seem to want to read into it that Phillips supports the other side.

Life Imitating Art?

This brings me to the films most interesting phenomenon. In the film, people react to Arthurs actions by putting him on a pedestal. They believe him to be an icon of chaos that will tear down the system. To the establishment he is an existential threat, to the downtrodden, he is a saviour. Yet ultimately he was just a man pushed too far, a victim, broken by the system. Though his antics meant he was now seen, but Arthur the man was more invisible than ever. When his fans discover the truth, they turn on him. At that point , he is truly alone. The enemies he made when he embraced the character of Joker still hate him. His only friends in the world are either traumatized or dead. Where this gets interesting is that the reaction to both Joker films has exactly mirrored the reaction to Arthur in those movies.

The first film generated outrage from the establishment. Specifically, mainstream journalists that thought the film was some kind of anthem for “Incels” that would rise up and engage in mass shootings. There were even metal detectors installed at some cinemas because people took this fear seriously. The reaction from people that felt beaten down by the system though was to see Arthur as some kind of icon. A symbol of standing up against the system. When the sequel came out both sides were no doubt expecting more of the same. But when it turned out this movie wasn’t “sticking it to the man”, those that had so invested in that side of the first were outraged so much they seem determined to see the film fail and Todd Phillips career to be over. Those that hated the first film stayed firm in their stance. The result, a box office bomb.

Good Intentions?

There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that Phillips set out to draw the audience so far in to the movie they could have been in the very universe the film is set. That the audience are reacting to the character of Arthur as if they are in his world and not just watching a movie. If so, there is no two ways about it, this is ingenious. But if not, then Phillips can’t be blamed for how the fans feel about the movie. It is just a somewhat experimental, somewhat arty movie from a director that likes to take risks. Phillips just wanted to make an interesting movie and take people on a journey. He didn’t set out to make a movie for one side of the cultural divide or the other. He just made a movie.

There’s a growing phenomenon with modern movies. All the while they are being criticized by some for being “Too safe”, there are risk taking creative directors that are finding the only way they can get a mainstream platform is to take on a mainstream franchise. The majority of the time this leads to an audience backlash. Franchises are not meant to be artist playpens after all. Instead they have a huge weight of audience expectations. That’s not to say a few risks don’t pay off. Guillermo Del Toro and Christopher Nolan have both proven that you can take risks and bring art to a superhero movie. But for every one of those there is a Josh Trank or Rian Johnson. Sometimes like with Taka Waititi and now Todd Phillips they start out with initial success, but eventually the desire to realize their vision gets in the way of audience expectations.

Keep Repeating: “It’s Just a Movie”

The mistake is to assume these directors set out to ruin things for the fans. That makes little sense. Even though people like Johnson and Waititi are antagonistic to the fans, no one actually sets out to fail. Sometimes there is some form of agenda, but not one of deliberate failure. Often these directors are just wildly inappropriate choices to take on franchise movies. Joker is a little different, since this was not set in an established universe. When Joker was greenlit there was a drive across Hollywood to make “Villain” movies. But Warner never asked for one in the main DC universe (Whose Joker at the time was Jared Leto).

No doubt the studio were not expecting a neo-noir, but it’s not like taking on the 8th part of a 9 part, 50 year franchise story. I say that because a lot of people have chosen to compare this to “The Last Jedi” while ignoring the very different situations. It’s worth noting most people didn’t even want a Joker origin story in the first place. The fact is Phillips had nothing to lose and so he didn’t something no one expected. But it worked and it made over a billion dollars as a result.

The Verdict

This time around, Phillips had everything to lose. Good job he was well paid for the risk, because he crashed and burned. In my view he took a too many risks this time. Making a gritty depressing tragedy and not a comic book superhero movie was already a risk. Making it a musical too… That was too much. Those scenes did serve a purpose. They are an insight into Arthur’s frame of mind. Not just in how he escapes his reality, but in how little imagination he has. A point that really didn’t need hammering into the audience so many times, and in a way that gave them very little to enjoy about it. It wasn’t designed to be an FU to the audience, but it wasn’t made for comic book fans either. It was made for Hollywood cinephiles. People at film school, other directors and possibly, The Oscars.

American directors tend to have a love of musicals. For me a musical is a way to compromise music for the sake of drama and drama for the sake of music. Often it just results in generic mediocrity. But that’s not how most directors feel. For them it is part of their DNA. The Oscars meanwhile love a depressing drama about someone with poor mental health that is mistreated by government organisations. Of course the backlash against the success of the first movie probably negates an Oscar nomination. But still, that is the kind of crowd it was made for. So it’s okay not to like it, but don’t take it personally. It is just a movie and Todd Philips is just a director that takes risk. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t.

My Name Is Julia Ross (1945)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Well, it is November and that means I’ll be doing a few Film Noir reviews. This year I’m not going to get carried away with it. I did 35 horror reviews last month, so I’m only posting a couple of things a week for November. Half of those will be Film Noir reviews. The other half will be new movies or articles. Anyway, for the first one of the month I specifically wanted to check out “I Am Julia Ross” from 1945. The reason being that one of the horror movies I reviewed last month “Dead of Winter” (1987) was a loose remake of this movie. So after viewing that, it seemed only fair to check out the original. The movie is directed by Joseph H Lewis from a screenplay by Muriel Roy Bolton and stars Nina Foch, Dame May Whitty and George Macready.

Julia Ross (Foch) is offered a job as live-in personal secretary to a wealthy widow, Mrs Hughes (Whitty). She is somewhat desperate for work, so is keen to take the job. However things not what they seem and after arriving she is drugged and passes out. She wakes up two days later at a strange house on the Cornwall coast. All her possessions have disappeared and Mrs Hughes now claims she is Marion, her son’s wife. Naturally Julia doesn’t accept this but the pair have convinced the locals that she is mentally unwell. Making matters worse the son Raph (Macready), appears to be prone to violence and likely murdered the real Marion.

A Rose By Any Other Name

This is a short movie, with a runtime of just over one hour. Despite that the movie doesn’t feel rushed. It also didn’t feel much like a film noir. I can’t help but suspect as a British production, that this was mostly outside the influence of the growing genre. Instead it has been retrospectively placed in that pigeon hole by history. The plot is not too far off the gothic romance noir movies, but the style is probably closer to a 1930’s thriller. Despite the dire situation the titular character finds herself in, the film actually has a lot about it that is quite upbeat and lighter in tone. The movie even ends with the lead and her romantic interesting largely laughing off the entire trauma.

The main negative of the movie is how far fetched everything is. I have to say Dead of Winter actually handled the situation a lot better and in a way that made it feel more realistic. This movie however requires a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief. What balances that out is the claustrophobic atmosphere and Nina Foch is putting over her fear and frantic attempts to escape. May Whitty and George Macready’s menacing double act also helps. Macready’s Ralph is clearly a psychopath and is barely able to restrain his lust for violence. The performance is perhaps a little over the top but is tempered by Mrs Hughes. The pair work together where they wouldn’t by themself.

Conclusion

Overall, I think the horror remake is the superior film and Mary Steenburgen the better actress. But this movie is still worth watching. It has a touch of charm and a good amount on tension. While the far fetched nature of things strains the narrative, the short length means it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. This is a strong 5.5/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

October may be over, but I have one more horror review for you before I move on to other things. This one comes a little late, but unlike others I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about this movie. I’m talking of course about the latest addition to the Alien franchise “Alien Romulus”. The trailers had some cool visuals but I had my doubts that this would be anything but a less good version of Aliens, updated with a few modern cliches. The movie is from director Fede Alvarez and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. It stars Cailee Spaeny and David Johnson with support from Isabela Merced,

Aliens: Romulus is set between the first two Alien films, which is a little strange on the surface but does fit with the trend of going back to the original movie in these franchises. What is unusual here is it’s not a retcon sequel, everything else is still canon. The story follows colonist Rain Carradine and her friends as they attempt to escape their apparent indentured servitude to the Weyland-Yatani company at a mining colony. To do this their plan is to break into an abandoned space station that is orbiting the planet and steal the left pods so they can utilize their cryo sleep capsules and reach another colony. Unfortunately for them the space station was abandoned for good reason as this outpost has been used to experiment on the infamous Xenomorphs.

In Space No One Can Hear Your Callbacks

I predicted what this film was going to be back when it was first announced. That is basically the same as “Prey” (2022) but for the Alien franchise. A watered down less good version of the movies that worked with endless references from those better movies put in simply for the sake of it. Not a bad movie as such. but it’s like watching a tribute band perform the greatest hits of your favourite artist. The music is good, but given the choice I’d always rather watch the real thing. That’s the difference between tribute bands and this kind of safe overly meta sequel movie, you can’t always see your favourite band. You can however always see your favourite movie. So movies like Prey and Romulus are things you watch once and then go back to only re-watching the first two movies as you have been for decades.

What I didn’t realize was just how much of a greatest hits Romulus would be. It doesn’t just reference the first two movies, it throws callbacks to the more divisive ones. When it does reference the first two movies it lays it on so thick it takes you out of it. This is the very definition of “‘Member Berries”. It is not “Nostalgia done right”, these things are shoehorned in. Actually the elements from the divisive movies are actually done better than the ones from Alien/Aliens, because they do service the plot. This is not a movie created to do something new or interesting with the franchise, it is one designed to get bums on seats in the theatre with little care for if anyone will remember the movie in five years time.

Alien Queens Greatest Hits Vol 2

Nostalgia bait is one thing. But what about the movie in it’s own right? Well, on the positive the music and the sound design are fantastic. I really did enjoy both those elements. Indeed the only callbacks to older movies I liked were the musical ones. Visually the film is mostly good. I say mostly because there is one bit of horrendous CGI. Naturally, this is tied to the pointless nostalgia call backs. The characters inclusion is itself a dumb and lazy plot element but the CGI just makes it embarrassing. Unfortunately, the character is in the film throughout. One of the worst callbacks to past movies includes a particular type of Alien. While the concept is still bad, I think this version looks marginally better.

The characters are a strong weakness for this movie too. Indeed these are just the dregs from an overly dystopian colony that is typical of the unimaginative modern view of the future. In Alien and Aliens while the company had nefarious goals, there was no indication that this film was set in a dystopian future. The crew of the Nostromo were just blue collar working Joes/Janes. They weren’t oppressed, they just weren’t pampered. Romulus though launches us instantly to a universe where the company effectively has slaves, who have no control over their destiny. The Company meanwhile have moved on from nefarious to full mustache twirling villainy. That makes the universe no longer feel real. The characters themselves have no real background to pull from and so feel generic outside of Andy the android and he’s not that much better.

Conclusion

Ultimately this is a movie that does nothing for the franchise. It is pretty, it is loud. Indeed one may say it is full of sound and fury yet ultimately signifying nothing. It has an extreme deficit of creativity and relies on nostalgia and callbacks. I originally thought this would be like Prey, but in many ways it’s more like “Terminator: Dark Fate”. It’s nowhere near as bad, nor does it remove the older films from canon. It does however repeat the same mistakes from those movies that derailed the franchise previously. That said, I did enjoy Romulus more than Prey (Or Dark Fate). That is mostly due to the visuals, sound design and music. It’s not a strong entry in the franchise, but it makes a reasonable popcorn movie. This is a 5.5/10.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

1980’s Horror Triple Bill

Posted on by fenrisfil

That’s right, It’s the final night of my October Review Challenge. That means it’s Halloween and *that* means it’s triple bill time. As you can probably guess, I watch the movies I review in October the day before I post (Sometimes earlier). So what I do on Halloween is sit back and enjoy three old classics without the pressure of having to review them. But this year, I’m sharing the fun somewhat by offering you a triple bill of reviews as well. That takes this years review challenge up to 35 movies reviewed. A new record (For me anyway). Anyway, tonight I’ve got a mixed bag of 80’s horror for you. Ouija boards, rats and very small demons. Let’s get to it!

Of Unknown Origin (1983)

Rats. They are creepy, territorial and hard to get rid of. Some are harmless pets, but even those creep the hell out of a lot of people. Naturally rats have always found their way into the horror genre. Tonight’s movie is the rat horror “Of Unknown Origin” from 1983. This is based on the 1979 novel “The Visitor” by Chauncey G. Parker III. The movie is directed by George P. Cosmatos and stars Peter Weller (Of Robocop fame). Cosmatos would go on to direct such smash hits as “Rambo” and “Tombstone”. His horror CV isn’t quite as impressive but “Leviathan” and “Cobra” do have their fans (Including myself for the latter). Brian Taggert provides the screenplay, René Verzier the cinematography and Kenneth Wannberg composed the soundtrack.

The movie focuses on Bart Hughes (Weller), an investment banker. Bart has just moved into a recently renovated house in New York City. His wife and daughter are due to go on Holiday, with Bart staying at home to finish work on a major project he thinks will earn him a promotion. Not long after, a flood in the flat reveals the presence of a rat somewhere in the house and Bart sets about trying to kill it. This turns out to be easier said than done, with the vicious beast not falling for his tricks and turning his life into a living hell.

Captain Ahab

At one point in the story Bart throws the book he is reading at the ceiling out of anger at the noises he is hearing from the invading rat. We get a clear shot of what he is reading and it is of course Moby Dick. This is basically all you need to know about the movies subtext. This is one man’s obsession to prove he can eliminate his nemesis. The rat doesn’t quite turn out to be his undoing though I’m sure he probably didn’t earn his promotion at work after all that.

The rat itself doesn’t look particularly good, but the movie compensates by being clever with what it shows and when.The result is we actually get some pretty disturbing visuals with glimpses of the rats teeth or eyes or a tail disappearing behind objects. It’s certainly creepy. Most often though you don’t see anything, you just hear noises. The weight of convincing the audience to buy into this movie is entirely on Peter Weller’s head. It is his performance that is the driving force behind the movie and he doesn’t let us down.

You Dirty Rat

Your millage may vary with this horror. When the focus is something like rats, obviously how you feel about those animals is going to impact if you find the film scary or even just end up sympathizing with the rat. However, I think everyone can appreciate the fear of an unseen monster running around their home and appreciate Weller’s performance. The downside is that there just isn’t anything more to the plot. Once you get the Moby Dick reference it’s basically just man vs beast to the end. Man wins, but at a cost. Because of that I can’t really give this more than a strong 5.5/10.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Ghoulies II (1987)

For the second entry in our triple bill I’m watching the sequel to 1984’s Ghoulies. This one promises to actually focus on the Ghoulies themselves instead of saving them for the final act as in the first movie. This is of course from Charles Band’s Empire Pictures (The precursor to Full Moon Features) and is directed by Charles’ father Albert. The screenplan is from Dennis Paoli and the movie stars Damon Martin, Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro.

The setting for this sequel is a carnival fun house called “Satan’s Den”, which has found itself home to an infestation of Ghoulies. That is small mischievous psychotic demons. The funhouse is in danger of being shut down by the carnivals accountant/investor. The sudden arrival of the Ghoulies initially turns out a boon for business, but as their antics become more fatal it is down to Larry (Martin), Nigel (Fondacaro) and Nicole (Kerry Remsen) to deal with them.

Ghoulies Go To The Fair

I feel like there has been a definite budget increase between this and the previous movie. Not that it looks expensive, but we do see a lot more of the Ghoulies and they are a lot more mobile than they were in the first movie. That’s good because the creatures effects are pretty cool and their murderous antics are entertaining. One of the Ghoulies actually does get to get someone in the end… Ahem. The death scenes, including those of the Ghoulies are pretty amusing. That’s basically all they are going for here and that’s fine, this is a movie that knows what it is.

The acting quality is about what you expect for a Charles Band horror in the 1980’s. A just about passable lead and weaker performances the further down the cast you get. Nothing that really takes you out of the movie though and that is the important thing. The characters aren’t particularly compelling, but have a bit of charm to them. I love how the Fun House actually has a fully sharpened bladed pendulum as one of the attractions. Not to mention how quickly bits of it explode. Yeah, this carnival probably should have been shut down. I guess it’s part of the fun how little of this movie makes any kind of sense.

They’ll Still Get You In The End

As sequels go this is giving the audience what they want. The main complaint from the first film was the lack of Ghoulies, so this definitely addressed that. However, that film at least had a plot. This is basically just Ghoulies being Ghoulies for an hour and a half. I don’t know why it wasn’t a more direct sequel to be honest. The intro is never explained and serves no purpose. The Ghoulies were already on the loose, so they could have just turned up at the Carnival. Anyway, this is a dumb fun film. Nothing more. Effectively it’s just a B-Movie version of Gremlins (Even more so even than the first one). For the fun factor and creature effects this narrowly hits a 5.5/10. You already know if you want to watch it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Witchboard (1986)

For the last movie of the 2024 review challenge I’m checking out Ouija board horror Witchboard from 1986. Written and directed by Kevin Tenney in his feature movie debut. Tenney would go on to direct a run of similar low budget horror movies to varying degrees of success. The movie stars Tawny Kitaen, Todd Allen and “Days of Our Lives'” Stephen Nichols.

The movie tells the story of a Linda Brewster (Kitaen) who becomes entranced into using her friend’s Ouija board alone after it was accidentally left behind at her party, resulting in her becoming terrorized by a malevolent spirit. Linda’s boyfriend Jim (Allen) and her ex Brandon (Nichols), whose board it was brings in a psychic medium (Kathleen Wilhoite) to exorcise the spirit. Things take a turn for the sinister when the psychic is murdered on her way home. Before Jim and Brandon can save Linda they have to find out just who the sinister spirit is that is terrorizing her.

Something Stupid This Way Comes

The cast and characters are not especially strong None of them are particularly likable and most of the supporting cast are given over the top personalities that just make them annoying, especially when mixed with below average acting. The worst offender is the medium Zarabeth, whose role is thankfully short. But the police detective is a close second. The leads are only marginally better. Despite that at least there are some interesting character dynamics.. The two male leads being old friends and now part of a love triangle is the most original thing, but It adds some much needed interest because outside of that their personalities suck.

The story on the other hand is actually pretty compelling and original. It is well paced and actually keeps you guessing at least until the final act. The layout of the three acts reminds me a bit of movies like Shocker and The Changeling where each act is virtually it’s own film. The middle act is probably the peak where the story turns into more of an investigation. Sadly the final act turns generic horror, leading to an underwhelming conclusion. There is pretty good use of sound throughout, both music and sound design in general. The visuals are not stunning but have creativity in places. .

Ouija Quit It

Overall this is a pretty average horror with a good story that unfortunately becomes silly at the end. The biggest problem is how annoying the characters are. Some, such as the police detective and the medium didn’t really need to even be in the story. The central three you could get away with providing everything paid off. Specifically, the relationship between the two childhood friends should have played a role in the finale. It didn’t though and the eventual solution was sort of dumb. While the movie is quite original, there’s a few too many flaws with this one to give it more than a 5/10.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

That’s A Wrap

Well, that’s it for this years October Challenge! The top five recommendations this year turned out to be Peeping Tom, Blood and Black Lace, A Dark Song, Opera and Crimson Peak. The only clangers (Below 5/10) were The First Omen and The Limehouse Golem. The rest was generally above average. I didn’t get in any Japanese horrors this year, but covered most of my usual traditions. Anyway, I don’t know what the future holds for me or this blog, but if I am back for another round next year I hope you will join me! Don’t forget, I do post reviews and articles throughout the rest of the year too. I’m most prolific in October and more horror focused, but I think you’ll find value to checking screen-wolf out all year round. Anyway…

Happy Halloween!

1950’s Horror Double Bill

Posted on by fenrisfil

Time for another horror double bill. This time we’re hitting the 1950’s for some classic horror science fiction. This was a popular sub genre in the fifties and in truth swayed more to science fiction but usually meant some kind of monster was involved along the way. No exception with this duo. So for your enjoyment I give you “It Came From Outer Space” from 1953 and “Day The World Ended” from 1955.

It Came From Outta Space (1953)

First up is the sci-fi horror classic: “It came from outta space” from 1953. This was originally released as a 3D movie as part of the first wave of that gimmick in the fifties. Indeed this was actually Universals first 3D movie. The movie is directed by Jack Arnold, often regarded one of the masters of sci-fi horror in the 1950’s. His other works include “Creature from the Black Lagoon” (1954), “Tarantula” (1955), and “The Incredible Shrinking Man” (1957). The story comes from prolific science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It stars Richard Carlson and Barbara Rush, with support from Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, and Russell Johnson.

A large meteorite crashes near the small town of Sand Rock, Arizona. Author and amateur astronomer John Putnam (Carson) investigates and realizes this is not a meteorite but a crashed space ship. Shortly after a landslide buries the spacecraft and as the only witness John has trouble convincing others to believe him. His girlfriend Ellen is the only one willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and helps him investigate. Over the next few days people start disappearing. Occasionally turning up apparently dazed and distant. Convinced this is something to do with the ship, John convinces the local sheriff (Drake) to assist. The question is, what do these visitors intend? Are they actually a threat?

The Night The Earth Will Never Forget

It’s worth noting this movie predates Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but not the Puppet Masters novel by Robert Heinlein. So at this point a movie where aliens assume the identity of regular people from a small town was a pretty fresh idea. Yet, through the lens of the modern day this could be seen as a subversion of that theme as the Aliens are not doing this as part of an invasion. The 50’s did actually have a fair mixture of benevolent and malevolent aliens. As is typical with the former types there is somewhat of a judgement against humanity on display here. Again, through a modern lens this is a little cliched but in the early 50’s this trope was only just starting to be established.

I’m not sure why this was a 3D movie. It’s not exactly action heavy and is actually quite slow in places. Then again I could probably say that about half the 3D movies that were ever released. While the 3D is wasted, I also don’t find too much horror in this story. The replacement of people doesn’t lead to much in the way of paranoia. The abduction scenes show very little and look dated. Last but not least, the aliens only reveal their true form once and only in a peaceful setting. They did pretty cool though and very unique. Not as good as the “War of the Worlds” aliens from the same year, but that movie had more than double the budget. The science fiction elements have aged far better than the horror ones.

Conclusion

This is a straight forward science fiction story with mild horror elements. It would have been fairly original in it’s time, but feels cliched now. Likewise the alien when it is revealed would have been a lot more impressive 71 years ago. I’m not sure the 3D would have impressed even in the day, but I can only judge that based on the lack of action on screen since I don’t have a 3D version. For the most part this feels like a decent TV movie. There’s not particularly wrong with it, the acting is fine, the directing is fine. But it’s all done without any real flourish to it. Overall this is a perfectly reasonable 5.5/10. Not recommended as a horror, but if you are a fan on old sci-fi it is worth watching.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Day The World Ended (1955)

For the second part of this double bill I’m reviewing the independent sci-fi/horror “Day The World Ended” from 1955. This is a post apocalyptic tale from the godfather of B-Movies, Roger Corman. This was actually his first full horror and his first in science fiction. Before then he’d only directed a couple of westerns and a handful of scenes for “The Beast With A Million Eyes”. The movie was written by Lou Rusoff (Who would later be a producer on another apocalyptic tale “Panic In Year Zero”). Richard Denning stars with support from Lori Nelson, Adele Jergens, Mike Connors and Paul Birch.

Set just after the events of an atomic war. A handful of survivors in an isolated box canyon find themselves cooped up in the home of former U.S. Navy Commander Jim Maddison (Birch) and his daughter Louise (Nelson). The visitors include small time hood Tony (Connors), his moll Ruby (Jergens), heroic geologist Rick (Denning), an irradiated and apparently dying man called Radek (Paul Dubov) and an old gold prospector called Pete (Raymond Hatton). They face three separate struggles for survival, the first against the dangers of radiation and the question of what the coming rain will bring. The second against the dangerous feral mutants that have appeared in this new irradiated world. The final struggle comes from inside and Tony’s plans to eliminate the other men and claim the rations and women for himself.

War Never Changes

I’ve always been a sucker for post apocalyptic fiction. Not only is it one of the great “What If”‘s of fiction, it always provides an excellent character study. Many of these films are effectively versions of the “Strangers in a room” story. These usually feature people sheltering from a storm, but this time the storm is radioactive. Usually these groups of people include at least one villain that drives a lot of the plot and this is no exception. Tony is clearly going to be a huge life threatening problem the whole way through. It’s hard not to see it as a plot hole that they don’t do anything about him until after he’s tried to take over the shelter several times, attempted to rape Louise and obviously killed his own girlfriend.

The rest of the film is focused on more far fetched science fiction elements. This is exactly the kind of 50’s science fiction that the “Fallout” video games took influence from. Indeed Radek, recovery from radiation sickness and how he now thrives on radiation is suspiciously similar to the Fallout concept of “Ghouls”. In this film, much like in the game radiation simply mutates a lot of the animals it makes contact with. The film doesn’t show us anything but sketches of most of these mutations, but the idea is to pave the way for the movies primary monster. The monster looks pretty good, but only turns up at the end and dies shortly after.

Conclusion

This is a somewhat stripped down movie that features a lot of good ideas that struggle to fit in to the run time. Certainly none of them get as fully developed as they deserve. The acting is passable, but at this point in his career Corman didn’t really direct the actors and that shows. The personalities of the characters come across as stereotypical archetypes. The monster looks pretty good for the age and limited budget and Corman certainly made the most of the sets. It’s a pretty impressive debut in the genre, but Roger would certainly do better later in his career. This ties with the other half of this double bill with a 5.5/10. If you like post apocalyptic tales and old sci-fi you will enjoy it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

1992 Horror Double Bill

Posted on by fenrisfil

As we roll closer to Halloween I’ve decided to up my game and do three double bill reviews. I’ve picked movies that won’t require me to be too verbose in my analysis, but should still be fun. First up is a 1992 Doctor Double Bill. That is I am review the comedy horror Doctor Giggles and the fantasy horror Doctor Mordrid both from 1992. The coincidences don’t stop there though as they both star an actor named Combs. They aren’t related but if you watched TV in the 1990’s you probably recognise them both.

Dr. Giggles (1992)

First up is the horror comedy slasher film “Dr. Giggles” from 1992. Directed by Manny Coto and written by Coto and Graeme Whifler. While Coto may not be the most recognizable name as a director, he has become a regular writer for horror television over the years. His credits include Dexter, American Horror Story and the Exorcist TV series. One instantly recognizable name from the 1990’s in Holly Marie Combs (One of the stars of the TV series “Charmed”) and Dr. Giggles was her first staring role in a feature film. Slashers though are more about the killer than the final girl and here we have Larry Drake playing the titular villain. Larry previously played the villainous “Durant” from the movie “Darkman” (1990).

Thirty Five years after a killing spree by Dr. Evan Rendell resulted in him being shot dead by police, his unhinged son (Drake) has escaped from an asylum and returned to the town of Moorehigh to continue his fathers work. He becomes increasingly obsessed with Jennifer Campbell (Combs), a young woman with problematic heart. The original cause of Dr. Rendell’s killing spree was that his wife’s heart was failing and he became obsessed with giving her a transplant (By killing people and cutting out their hearts). Now his son wants to replace Campbell’s heart and will kill anyone else that gets in his way.

Open Up And Say Arrrrrgh

Slasher movies swarmed the 1980’s, so by the time 1992 rolled around we’d seen pretty much everything. It wasn’t until 1996 when “Scream” added a layer of polish and a big touch of meta-references that the genre started to feel relevant again. With that in mind you can see why this film had mostly negative reviews when it came out. However, we’re a long way from the 80’s now and slashers that don’t try and drop twists, subvert expectations or be self referential suddenly feel sort of fresh.

It helps that Dr. Giggles brings a lot of personality to the table courtesy of Larry Drake’s performance. The methods of killing and the medical puns make him a memorable antagonist. It also helps to have Hollie Marie Combs as the final girl. As well as being a generally good actress, few people feel quite as wholesome as Hollie. That works well for a final girl as it makes you automatically sympathetic. The rest of the cast are somewhat below average and don’t offer anything memorable. They aren’t so bad as to take you out of the movie and most of them are just there for the kill count so this is fine.

The Last Laugh

This is a formulaic yet fun slasher movie. The villain is memorable and has a distinct personality. The final girl is actually a good and recognizable actress (Who achieved fame later) and plays the part well. The kills all fit the theme and there’s even a few good visuals along the way. Against that is a paper thin plot with more than a few holes. That doesn’t get too in the way with a comedy horror slasher so this narrowly earns a 6/10. High than I expected to give this! If you like slashers and/or comedy horror I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Doctor Mordrid (1992)

In the early 1990’s Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment became quite ambitious. In 1990 they released the movie “Robot Jox”, not a great movie but ahead of it’s time for what it tried to achieve on a modest budget. Marvel meanwhile was not in a great place with it’s movies. It wouldn’t be until 1998’s “Blade” that they started the journey to the modern era of superhero movies. Instead their most recent movies were Dolph Lundgren’s “Punisher” (1989) and 1986’s Howard The Duck. Not movies that set the world on fire. So no shock they were willing to give Band the rights to make a “Doctor Strange” movie. Sadly (Or luckily) those rights expired while this film was in pre-production and Band decided to simply change the names and move forward with it.

Anton Mordrid (Jerffrey Combs) is a wizard tasked by a being called “The Monitor” to protect the Earth from an evil Wizard called Kabal (Brian Thompson). Kabal needs to acquire the philosophers stone and a number of alchemical elements to unleash his minions from the fourth dimension. Mordrid befriends and is assisted by Samantha Hunt (Yvette Nipar), a research consultant to the police. As Kabal gets closer to his goal, Mordrid is suspected by the police of committing the crimes and he must escape custody and meet his nemesis for a final showdown at the Cosmopolitan Museum.

Master Of The Dark Arts

This is one of those horror adjacent movies, simply because it involves dark magic. In truth it’s no more a horror than Charmed or Buffy the Vampire slayer. Brian Thompson, who plays the evil antagonist “Kabal” was a regular on both of those shows and honestly I wouldn’t have been surprised to see the Shannen Doherty or Sarah Michelle Gellar turn up. Brian has one of those combinations of faces and voices that make him perfect villain material. His acting ability was never quite enough to raise him to a higher level and so he became type cast. For a cheap horror though, he’s perfectly adequate. Jeffrey Combs however is actually a much better actor than his long run of low budget horrors and TV shows would suggest. Any time he turns up in a movie like this, the quality raises.

Despite the budget this is a well put together movie with a mostly higher quality level of acting than you may expect. But in typical Charles Band style that is only true of the main characters. Once you reach the bit parts the acting quality drops right down. Again though, not really any worse than an episode of Charmed. Most aspects of this movie are reasonable. They just about get away with the effects at the end of the movie, which were obviously minimized for the sake of the budget. The big problem is the script. It is 50% generic and 50% plain bad. The climax felt sort of random and unearned as did the relationship between the main characters.

It’s A Kind Of Magic

This is film that could have been a lot better even with the special effects limitations of the day. Effectively being a Doctor Strange movie, we have a raw concept we know can work. We have an excellent protagonist, a good leading lady and a villain that slips into the role like a comfy pair of shoes. But then we have a plot that doesn’t seem to have any plans for how to tell a story with these very fine ingredients. The movie is on the short side at a mere 74 minutes, so it’s no surprise it feels like it was just about to get into its stride when BAM it’s over. As a result, the best I can give this is a 5/10. This is basically a TV movie. If you want to see Jeffrey Combs at his best, check out “Re-Animator” (1985) instead. If you are curious about the Doctor Strange movie that never happened it may be worth watching, otherwise give it a pass.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Bloody Hell (2020)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Bloody Hell is a 2020 independent horror comedy from director Alister Grierson and writer Robert Benjamin. It is based on an idea Benjamin came up with while at an airport and is his feature film debut. The film stars Ben O’Toole and Meg Fraser (Also making her debut). Support is from Caroline Craig, Matthew Sunderland and Travis Jeffrey (Playing twins). The movie is mostly set in Finland, even though none of the main actors are finnish and most of the movie was actually filmed in Australia.

Rex (O’Toole), is an ex-military man that has just been released from jail after his heroics in taking out a gang of bank robbers cost the life of an innocent woman. He is seen by some as a hero and others as a villain. Either way his celebrity status is too much for him and so he opts for a fresh start… in Finland. Unfortunately for him he is immediately kidnapped by a family of cannibals and wakes up tied to the ceiling in a basement and missing a foot. Fortunately he is tougher than he looks and he has an ally… the voice in his head.

Hello Me

There are many different flavours of horror comedy around. Some are dark and twisted, others are so heavy on the laughs they barely count as horror. Some lean heavily into B-Movie effects and aesthetics and others are more realistic and rely on fluke and idiocy to create mad situations. That last group is where you’ll find “Bloody Hell”, but it’s a specific sub-flavour of that because it relies on the protagonist being quite unhinged himself. The situation in which he finds himself in should by all rights be terrifying, but because he is talking to an imaginary version of himself that is calmer and more in control, the situation actually becomes a comedic one. It’s quite a clever idea conceptually.

One of the things I noticed with this film is how fast the time went by. In actual fact the protagonist spends most of the film strung up in the basement, but it doesn’t feel like then while you are watching it. Other things go on around him, including flashbacks revealing what happened at the bank. These help break it up, but in actual fact most of the movie is one character talking to himself. We see the voice in his head as a physical manifestation so the scene feels like a genuine conversation. This works surprisingly well and then when the final act kicks off and he breaks free, the action is swift and clever. The pacing is pretty much spot on.

Finnish Him

It’s impossible not to see the influence of Deadpool on this movie or perhaps more accurately Ryan Reynolds. In many ways the movie reminds me of Reynold’s “Voices” horror comedy, which used a very similar trick. In that Reynold’s is a serial killer but the film is framed through his imaginary conversations. Sometimes with his pets and occasionally the dead bodies of his victims. Bloody Hell isn’t quite as funny as Voices, but it does have the scope for sequels. Indeed the film definitely hints at more to come and I hope we see it. O’Toole doesn’t have Reynolds natural wit and charisma on screen, but he does and pretty good job of impersonating it. This was Meg Fraser’s feature debut so her performance was very impressive. It’s worth noting, since none of the cast were actually Finnish, so they had to learn to speak the dialogue for the role.

Overall, this is a smoothly put together movie that works pretty well for what it is. It isn’t overly funny or particularly scary but it keeps you entertained. The protagonist is likeable despite being a little crazy and the action scenes, while minimal, are fun. I imagine the film would drag a little on second viewings but it’s definitely worth watching once. This is a solid 6/10 and a recommendation. Apparently a sequel is being considered, I’ll be there for it!

Rating: 6 out of 10.