Poltergeist

                          

Laugh out loud fun for all the family! 

                       

So 'Poltergeist' has been remade now, and it's hilarious. The elements that are intentionally so usually aren't, but many of the serious family drama scenes totally are. The pacing is awkward, with lots of little horror shorts between the family comedy scenes, and the mood changes back and forth so often that I was never really sure how to feel. I think it needed a re-edit, as while it sticks to the basic plot of the original, the humorous family parts are played up and the ghost parts are presented in that current style (time of writing is mid-2017) of jump scares and loud bursts of noise, and the result is an uneven film that felt like it was going through puberty or something.

I think part of the problem was the casting of Sam Rockwell as the dad. I really like Rockwell. He's almost always fantastic in whatever he's in, but here he kind of takes over the movie with how likeable and endearing he is. The rest of the cast did pretty well too (I quite liked the Mad-Eye Moody style ghost hunter character in particular), but especially during the first half it felt like the Sam Rockwell show and I was rooting for him as he tried to keep his family happy and get a new job at dinner parties.

                 

                             

The first inclination of silliness was the way the comics were stacked up. In the original the mum turns away and off camera the crew stacked up the chairs silently, in this one the kid turns around and an annoying stinger cord plays and the animated comic books blow apart. The original went all bonkers too, but far more competently and without the flashy effects. An exception is the ghostly world; it was hellish and wispy and full of twisted flailing bodies and I liked it. It reminded me of 'The Triumph of Death', and while I think it was a smart move for the original to not show the other side at all, I don't mind that they did so in this one.

A note on the kids though - why do all movie teenagers have to be so annoying? Taking other people I knew at that age, about 10% were as annoying as about 80% are in film. I also didn't like the mums reaction to the boy finding a bone in the garden. Did she think it was dirty or something? It was clearly old enough to be long free of meat, so it's no more dirty than the rest of the ground, and this was before they knew they were living on an ex-cemetery (and even if they knew it was a human bone - so what?) By that age the kid should already have a small collection (not necessarily of human bones).

                     

Poltergeist: 37.5

The Ring

             

Americans can't read, so they remade 'Ring' with slightly worse actors and a more heavy handed script. Of course the main characters have to be literally related to the girl that dies at the start, her son has to literally be wearing a little grey suit to show us how old he is at heart, she has to go visit the crazy girl for a cheap creepy scene. Watching it right after the original makes it quite funny, seeing all the subtle little character traits turned into clichés. A good example of the differences between the American and Japanese versions of this film are in the victims. In the original they're ghostly white, their eyes are wide and staring, and their mouths are agape in terror. They seem to have been killed by the fright of the last thing they saw. There's no gore, but that almost makes it more scary. Then in the American version the first victim is blotchy and appears to the in the initial stages of decay, despite only having died a few hours ago. Her eyes are bloodshot and turned up in her skull and her mouth is open and full of blood and gore, which is covering the lower portion of her face making her look like a zombie. 'The Ring' relies of a quick shot of the victim and a stinger cord to create fear, while the original indulges in a lingering close up as a police officer pushes the body back into a sitting position (something about which is morbid in itself, it's like watching old holocaust footage or something). Straight away the remake feels more lazy and cheap, and it's a feeling that doesn't go away.

                                 

                  

It's still a moderate to decent horror by itself though. It looked more expensive, the quality of the film was higher, and there were plenty of nice artsy shots. I really liked some of the clips in the video in this one, especially the one of the maggots that jumps to a similar aerial shot of bodies jostling in mud. The plot was also far more cohesive, if traditional and boring, than the original.

Remakes are usually worse than the originals. Sometimes they're better. Interestingly, this film is better than the original at what the Japanese version was weakest at (pacing, story structure, and the crispness of the visuals) but doesn't live up to anything else (most notably the originals great acting, suspense, subtlety and general quality of the scares).

                     

I loved the little nod to 'Rear Window' as she looks out and sees all the other people in their front rooms with their TVs on - one of them even has a broken leg.

               

The Ring: 37.8

Ring

                

'Ring' combines an emerging teen culture in an increasingly tech savvy nation with a traditional Asian style ghost story. It's very much of its time (in the way it was executed) but has aged really well. The leads were fantastic, and the effects (though basic) are low key and few and far between which keeps them from getting boring and works in a low budget medium. 

The opening scene is one of my favourites in horror. There's a perfectly excruciating build up and release of tension as the girl tells her friend a scary story - but it's just a story - but it happened to her friend! - nah, not really - but then the phone rings! All of this turns out to be a prolonged cold open, and we never even see either of the girls again (though they are mentioned). Instead, we switch to our protagonist who's investigation of the ghostly deaths soons becomes personal when she, her kid, and her ex all end up watching the video (oh yeah there's this video and if you watch it you die after a week - I don't think I really need to give a proper plot synopsis on such a popular film). I like the two main characters; they interact naturally and you can tell they have a lot of history without it being explained outright. 

The start proves somewhat confusing, and the plot proceeds rather choppily that can make the story hard to follow. While the confusion over who the main characters are is soon rectified, the film continues to suffer pacing problems throughout.

                  

                     

The scene towards the end where they're taking it in turns to literally go down the well and stand in the water, knowing she's in there somewhere, is another one that really stood out to me. It culminates as Sadako grabs at her arm and we cut from her ghostly fingernail-less hand to her hair slipping wetly from her fleshless skull. It's pretty horrifying, and the revelation at the end that it was all essentially for nothing made it all the worse (not the granddad, he was actually likeable!) 

The editing is good all over. There's nothing overly complex, but the long shots and quiet ambient sound followed by quick cuts and flashes is a reliable horror recipe. I really liked the creepy chord that played whenever the date appears - the progression of time is something to be feared in this film. 

Minimalist and restrained yet at times alarmingly intense.

                 

Ring: 55.7

Ghostbusters

                  

So this is one of the best comedies of all time. It's perfectly cast (to the extent that the movie really feels crafted around the leads), perfectly written, brilliantly dry, wonderfully shot and excellently scored. The quadruplet of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and (director) Ivan Reitman really make this movie (oh and Ernie Hudson was good too - actually, so was Moranis and Potts and Weaver, though Peter's intentions in that romantic plot line never felt totally legitimate to me, Dana deserves better.) It's not a film about ghosts at all - all of the sci-fi elements are just backdrop to these guy's amazing chemistry with one another.

              

           

There was a lot of ad-libbing going on, which often turns me off, but they're obviously so happy with one another that it works. Murray delivers characteristically great punchlines (as well as consistently maintaining an air of dry humour), Ramis plays the socially dysfunctional straight man (though limiting his contribution to this is a little insulting), Aykroyd is believably weird (because he is, and I love him). The plot starts fairly grounded, and gradually escalates in insanity until the final reveal of the giant Stay Puft marshmallow man. This film isn't just not scary, it actively combats both horror and the supernatural. Science is what defeats the ghosts (and multidimensional gods) in the end, not reading backwards from the book of evil. Comedy plays a similar role, as none of the ghosts (save Slimer) are particularly funny - it all comes from how the characters act in these situations. I like it when my expectations are met with the reverse like this, and this film does it so well that I often compare it to 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' on that point. 

                   

                             

And I love that these guys are just normal people, you know? They don't do crazy flips or anything - they don't even really know what to do most of the time. They're likeable and feel real, which is just what you want in a protagonist. 

The idea of battling ghosts with scientific equipment isn't such a big deal anymore, with all those shitty paranormal inpector TV shows, but back then it was a neat original idea, and combined with the brilliant comedy of the three main characters, has made 'Ghostbusters' a timeless classic.

                  

Ghostbusters: 90.0

Ghostbusters

                  

“Don't even listen to what the sexist detractors are pouting so much about, this excellent, hilarious reboot is even better than the original movie, with great actresses playing intelligent women who can kick more ass than a lot of men - and the special effects are sensational.”

                       

This made me angrily vomit into my closed fist. Shut the fuck up Carlos Magalhães, and stop contributing to the artificial --- that is effectively free publicity for this terrible movie - I wouldn't pout, but when a studio makes money they tend to keep going, and it's people like this who are helping along the current (time or writing is early 2017) trend of crappy re-boots and re-makes and soft re-boots and flaccid re-makes.

I thought I'd feel better after that but I don't, for (shakespear quote about hate being a monster that feeds on itself), so I'll just keep going and base my whole thing around criticising this dope. Carlos is a “super reviewer” at 'Rotten Tomatoes', by the way.

                      

                     

Alright, so weather or not you care about the genders of the leads (I don't, but I don't mind if you do, Carlos) this is not better than the original movie. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it's not at all good, and it's not nearly close to the original. I know any art form is totally subjective, but I think the majority would agree with me, and I'm currently writing this thing, so..

The actors were alright, but given a little too much leeway for my blood. Without even checking I can tell a lot of the quirky little comedy moments were ad libbed, and it often detracted from their characters (what I'm saying is, they didn't have characters). The main one had a backstory, as did her old buddy, so an extent, but other than that it was just sort of... now we're ghost busters! Like I said though the actors themselves were fine. Jones was my favourite in the film (a surprise, because she seemed irritating in the trailer and I haven't seen her before, but she was actually the most grounded of the bunch), and if I still watched more SNL than the odd clip I think I'd enjoy them all on that. I don't tend to lie an actors performance more or less based on how much ass the fiction character they're playing can kick, Carlos, you prick.

The special effects were perfectly acceptable. I don't think Slimer needed to make such an embarrassing appearance, and neither did any one of the litany of old cast members. They turned up everywhere, usually in boring roles, to look depressed and deliver a snarky line or two before going away again or dying.

The villain of the piece is badly fleshed out too. His main trait is that he's weird, and he does weird well, but that's it. He doesn't get a chance to build a relationship with our protagonists either, as they're both too busy doing their own things for almost the entire movie (part of this is the extended development of the ethereal weaponry scenes, which I quite enjoyed, but they felt like filler nonetheless).

                   

The last little thing is the way the creators repeatedly showed their contempt for the fans of the originals. Maybe don't call them ass holes when they call you out on shitting on the property? It's usually a bad idea to fuck with the fans.

On the whole a fairly bland comedy horror that shamelessly rips off a classic. It's very cosmetic, there are so many little poop jokes and random weird Pringle eating and needless crap shoved in.

                    

Ghostbusters: 24.5

Ouija: Origin of Evil

                

After the major crapfest (Major Crapfest) of the original, I was more than happy to stay well away from this series, but then I saw that this one got 82% on Rotten Tomatoes!

After watching it, I don't think it deserved such a high score, but this one certainly was better than the original.

                 

           

There are some chilling moments (the smaller child actor was excellent. I especially liked her description of being choked to death, though the dumb 'The Mummy' face effect was laughable) but on the whole this I nothing special. Films of this ilk are samey to the point of absurdity, and this one is no different.

I paid so little attention to the first one that I don't really remember how they tie into one another. I assume the old lady actor at the end is in the other one though? I've seen her in these shitty films before, though it could have been a different one. Anyway, I was going to write more for this review but I don't think this film is worth my time. I've getting bored of Ouija boards, they should make a horror movie about a different board game - maybe Monopoly? Or Risk. I like Risk.

               

Ouija: Origin of Evil: 24.4

Poltergeist

                

Look at the fear on JoBeth Williams' face as she rolls up the ceiling – the whole set was rotating for that scene, with a fixed camera. And when the skeletons were coming out of the pool at her? Apparently, those were real cadavers (they definitely were for the second one anyway. It's sort of a rumour about this one, but still).

          

             

My point is that this is one of my favourite practical effect-laden films. Definitely my favourite one about ghosts (there's such a profusion of crappy ghost movies). The family is great: believable without being annoying. The poltergeist itself isn't explained too much, and it has a range of activity that is both original and creepy throughout. So many ghostly staples of cinema originate from this one film.

              

                

It's one of fairly few modern horrors that I can safely say is a classic. A large part of that is the huge amount of work that went into making it, but the script was also brilliant. It worked with the actors to create believable characters, while keeping lean and not having any boring dialogue.

The story is driven along by all of this and seems to follow the ghostly set menu for films like this, but then it gets weirder and weirder (with several fake-outs that they were in the clear). The wackiness is impressive in that it's never not scary, while simultaneously being surprisingly fun.

It's really quite silly, and I don't think there's any really deep message here (other than maybe don't disrespect native American stuff?), but it's a very enjoyable film.

                   

Poltergeist: 79.0

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death

                      

When taken as a stand-alone: meh. It's run of the mill and lacks anything that would particularly endear me to it (apart from effective atmosphere and lighting, which can be pretty much taken for granted in a horror like this with a reasonable budget anyway). When taken as a direct sequel to 'The Woman in Black' though, it doesn't hold up at all.

The setting is the same, but it's set like 40 years after the first movie, and none of the same characters are in this one. Their replacements are bland and forgetful (the main thing about our hero is that she smiles to hide fear/sadness...?), and the film doesn't use it's slow pace to build on them enough. The villain is the same, as far as I can remember, but I don't understand why she's back. Unless this is a different ghost now? It's not just that, though. This just doesn't feel on the same level as the previous movie. The scares are cheap and predictable, the pacing is up and down, and the plot plays out extremely predictably.

                   

                    

The fact that I'm unsure of what the main villain's motivation is, is a bad sign - I mean I was trying to pay full attention to this movie, it just never fully clicked, you know?

But as a stand-alone, fine. Not great, or even good, but not the worst. I don't recommend it though, the war stuff (which I'd usually find sort of interesting) wasn't even that real feeling. Sort of like 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' but not quite as bad.

                       

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death: 23.9

The Forest

                     

A dreary trek through a haunted Japanese forest, with a straight forward plot that sports only cosmetic twists.

Purely as a horror, 'The Forest' is simply not that scary or original. The setting was a neat idea, but the cultural background isn't built upon very much. Natalie Dormer plays both the lead and her twin sister, in a very cliché move for range. It doesn't really work, mostly because both characters are quite flat and samey.

                          

                 

It's once the film goes from being a simple shock-scare horror and tries to explore the lead's psychology that it turns from being simply forgettable into being irritatingly boring.

Very by the numbers, with lots of unimaginative scares. The setting showed promise but was not implemented very well.

                   

 The Forest: 13.5

Spectral

                  

A sort of 'Black Hawk Down'/'The Hurt Locker' type deal, but with ghosts. Eh.

               

We're in eastern Europe, and shit has hit the fan. Then rebel factions of shit built their own fans and... well, it's a mess. The US is involved of course (they're probably the one blocking the toilet), and have set up a big base from which they go on day trips. Oh yeah, and they're all wearing special goggles which lets them see ghosts.

               

                    

It's alright I guess. The acting is fine, though the characters aren't particularly interesting. There's a lot of shooting and junk. The mystery surrounding the whole ghosts thing isn't unravelled for a long while though, and when it is it feels rather rushed (how many times do we need to say Bose–Einstein condensate before the viewers stop listening and assume this is smart?)

The effects were good though, and the action sequences were fairly actiony. Not only that, though, but the effects worked in tandem with the live action elements well, and together creates a nice atmosphere (namely bleak and Hungarian looking).

It didn't fully keep my attention or feel particularly original, but it wasn't a total bust. It looked good (some of the shots were very enjoyable, especially that one of the soldiers storming a building - shot from above to show the ballet of their organised, silent movements) and it wasn't boring, exactly, so that's kind of a win?

                       

Spectral: 38.0

Ouija

               

I was bored for the first ten minutes, then snorted with laughter as the girl hung herself. It was just so badly put together – like batman sitting up there in the corner of the room in 'Batman v Superman'. Not a good start, movie.

Then I sat through some diner chat as we get to know our idiot teenagers, then we watch them whine about their dead friend. If hating you and every part of you is what you're going for, you're doing great, movie.

                 

                

It ends as you would expect too, with exactly the characters you would expect to die dying. The film isn't horrible, it's just nothing new. There's nothing interesting or even particularly engaging about the story or the characters.

                  

Ouija: 12.6

The Conjuring 2

                    

So in this one our knock off Mulder and Scully are off (I do actually enjoy them together though. To be honest I love 'The X Files' so much that "Mulder and Scully rip off" is a compliment.) to merry old England to solve a case involving an extremely cliche working class family and a ghost who likes being a dick just because - until it turns out to be a demon.

The tone here is a little lighter than in the first movie, and the duo seem to having more fun with their roles. It hasn't turned into an 'Evil Dead' style comedy horror yet, but we are increasingly getting the impression that these two can handle it, so we needn't really worry about them. This is fine, for me, as by stint of not caring I rarelyworry about anyone in horror movies. However, the location shift seems like a cheap trick to me (yeah I know that they're basing it off actual events, but there are other events to choose from), kind of like one of the dying Simpson's episodes where they randomly go to some country and make fun of them for an American half hour (20ish minutes). The accents are occasionally a little slathered on too, esecially with the mum's rarely (thank god) seen friend.

Also, I'm not sure I should even bother having this as a point anymore, but, it's not scary. No big deal though, the first one wasn't particularly either.

The historical setting is jammed into the narrative a little more clumsily than it was in the first movie. Though far from being a lowsy effort, this element is no longer noteworthy for it's impressive execution.

                 

              

The twist on the ghost is somewhat predictable, but I don't usually watch these for the twists anyway, so meh. The design of it all is nice though, and the director continues to play with the camera and lighting in ways that seem almost original at times. I particularly liked the scene where the nun-looking demon is standing in the shadows or... is that just the painting of it? This was the best tension creating scene in the film in my opinion.

This continues to be a fine series, but I can feel it slipping.

                      

The Conjuring 2: 33.5

Annabelle

              

Sort of like 'Child's Play' but less funny. Equally shit though. 'Annabelle' is lazily connected to 'The Conjuring', but if you watched that and for some reason decided to watch all the related movies, don't bother - this is far worse, and doesn't even feature the two ghost busters from the original.

It centres around a doll that featured brielfy in the first movie, and then goes on an on about the doll, until you hate the doll. Not because it's scary, but because this sucks. The main characters are bland, and easily mistaken as secondary leads. Everyone is boring, the acting is poor to hammy, and the history is mixed in with the movie sloppily (which surprised me, as it was pulled off nicely in 'The Conjuring').

                 

                   

Not a whole lot else to say here, other than I think that the nice woman with teh dead daughter character should have been played by Whoopi Goldberg, because she's basically Guinan from 'Star Trek TNG'.

             

Annabelle: 23.5

The Conjuring

                  

Initially interesting, 'The Conjuring' ends up being fairly run of the mill. It's clearly the first of a series, as it follows the (assumingly) massively hyped adventures of two real life ghost busters.

                   

                    

Some of the shots are surprisingly well done, and the way that the film plays with time towards the start and lets us get to know our investigators before sort of sidling into into the family's drama without having anyone meet too soon is well done. This movie also mashed it's plot into a historical period better than most modern horrors have, that have tried similar things. You can easily tell the date from any scene, without it being unrealistically in your face or cliche.

However, these positives don't stop this movie from being what it is - a mediocre, sometimes tedious, paranormal crap fest. The kind that is churned out in hundreds of variations for cheap unimaginative dates and idiots to attend. I don't think jump scares are all that, but I suppose if I did, I'd say that the ones in this are fine. The atmosphere is actually worked on, and I appriciate this far more, but it still didn't do much for me. Maybe I'm numb, or have been forced to watch too many of these movies, but whatever.

Oh, and I quite liked the family; they were somewhat believable. I even almost liked the girls (an incredible feat for me and kids), but not quite. I also liked the design of the tree: it's pretty Tim Burtony, and reminds me of the tree of the dead from 'Sleepy Hollow'.

                     

A pretty good example of a grossly over done genre, if you're given a choice of dumb ghost movies like this to watch, this is one of the more tollerable ones to choose. Fair movie, bad genre.

              

The Conjuring: 33.8

Hamlet

          

This is, without a doubt, the best performance of 'Hamlet' that I have ever seen. I kick myself for never heading down to Stratford or London and seeing this one in person - it must have been intense. David Tennant plays the prince and Patrick Stewart is both his uncle and father.

Need I say any more?

Both actors are blisteringly perfect, delivering every line brilliantly (not always how I would imagine them delivered, but an excellent and often original take on the classic) and would easily carry the show on their performances alone, if it weren't for the host of other great actors involved.

           

               

Oliver Ford Davies was awesome as Polonius, Penny Downie made a great Gertrude, and while I wasn't as blown away by Mariah Gale and Edward Bennett (Ophelia and Laertes respectively), they did very well, and it would be difficult for any actor to make an impression against such towering talent. The rest of the cast did well too, and I struggle to find fault in any aspect of the performance whatsoever.

Tennant seems to have been born to play the unstable, ranting, indecisive prince. The jerks of his head and tensing of muscles convey madness in a very physical way, beyond what his character is apparently acting out. The Hamlet of this rendition isn't as immune to his own tricks as he would like us to believe: he clearly becomes increasingly unhinged as the plot unfolds, and it is as Hamlet's sanity slips that Tennant really hits his stride. And what a wall against which to rage! Stewart plays Claudius with the ease one would expect from such a veteran of the RSC, and we can see the joy in his performance at having such a talented partner. I worship Patrick Stewart a little (possibly because he is somewhat one and the same as Jean-Luc Picard of the Enterprise in my mind), but I don't think that I am understating his or anyone else's performance in this masterpiece. These actors, more than anything else, make this the best rendition of this play. They are almost definitely why this is my favourite play by Shakespeare - hell, my favourite play by anyone. I would go so far as to say that their performance here is what really grabbed my attention in Shakespeare initially (with the help of an excellent English teacher), and ultimately they are part of the reason why I like writing. Heavy shit.

          

It's all done in modern dress, and several shots are even in the style of security cameras. Most of the main characters are wearing dinner suits and whatnot throughout. This works very well with the feel you get from the characters, and the style of the rendition as a whole. I loved the scene where Hamlet was doing his crazy thang, and was wearing a t-shirt with a muscly torso on it. So many little visual jokes that sneak in past the constricting script (and you know it's good if I'm calling a script that Shakespeare wrote constricting), and so many little twists on the lines, delivering them in a whole new way that either changes the meaning by leaning more heavily on a particular element, or by adding a whole new element of sarcasm or comedy and altering our traditional perception of the character. The way that Hamlet spins aimlessly on a chair as he raves, the off-hand remarks that a confused Polonius really can hear, the disturbed look on Horatio's face as we realise that he can't hear the ghost's voice, and maybe Hamlet really is mad from the start.

               

I needn't mention the broken mirror imagery, but the part of my brain that's still in secondary school English class wants too.

Someone once said that if Hamlet and Othello's places had been swapped, both stories would have ended very differently. Hamlet would have seen through Iago's scheme, and Othello would have killed Claudius immediately after being told to do so by the ghost of his dead father. This stark difference between Hamlet and a more action-orientated man is part of the reason why I like the guy so much, and is what David Tennant shows us so well. The whole thing is just excellent, and while the sets are bare and minimalistic, and I wasn't sure weather to include it in with the movies at all (as it is the recorded version of a play - but it's classed as a "Television Film" by Google, and I've done TV movies before, damn it!), I still think this is deserving of a high place in my big list thing. I'll never be able to produce anything so perfect, but at least I can have the joy of watching it.

           

Hamlet: 90.4

Scrooged

     

An entertaining yet slightly disappointing take on the classic Dickens story featuring Bill Murray in the leading role. I enjoyed it, and it was smoothly shot and acted, but some of it just felt a little off for me.

    

   

Murray's heart doesn't really seem to be in it, and his acting - while pretty darn damn goddamn fucking good by normal standards - isn't on par with his better work. Some of his exchanges with other characters just don't feel particularly real, and his angry shouting feels a bit too serious for what is meant to be, essentially, a comedy.

It's a bit on the dark side all round, really, and I think that would bother most people. I couldn't really care less personally, but then I share a fairly similar sentiment towards Christmas as he does. People literally die and stuff.

I did like plenty of aspects of 'Scrooged' though. The ghosts were all good (if extremely cheesy) - I especially liked the ghost of Christmas present: a fairy who swings back and forth between sugary sweetness and ass kickery. There were lots of nice little funny sequences, and overall the film held together nicely.

   

Scrooged: 41.3

Hamlet

  

This 1990 rendition of my favourite Shakespeare play features Mel Gibson, who has been somewhat cast as Hamlet. I'm not his greatest fan, but he did a decent job as the prince. The script sticks to the original, which was a nice surprise. I might have stopped watching if it didn't, to be honest. They've also stuck to the original time and place setting.

However, they have made a few interesting choices with who overhears who in many scenes (this is one area that many directors differ on, as weather particular people hear each others plans can change the tone of the play as a whole rather extensively). I don't agree with the direction of every scene in this respect, as it seems like everyone is spying on everyone else, and so (through extensive knowledge of one anothers' intent) every main character is plagued by the same inaction that Hamlet traditionally is.

   

  

I'd have changed a few other things too: I didn't like how the play (within a play) was still stopped by the king thanks to his reaction to the poisoning, rather than him stopping it because of what Hamlet was saying. I prefer the idea that Hamlet ruined his own plan through over enthusiasm, giving away the plot of the play, and causing the king to freak out himself. I'd also rather than when Gertrude drinks the poison in the final scene, it seems more like she knows what she is doing, and is committing suicide, rather than the blissful ignorance in happiness that is portrayed here.

Despite this, the movie had many strong points. The sets are nice and the exterior shots, though not particularly traditional (it's odd to see in a play, anyway) are well put together. I didn't love Mel, but he did fine, and a lot of the other casting was good. Ian Holm is absolutely perfect as Polonious, and he brings the character to life possibly better than anyone else I've seen (it just occurs to me now how alike Polonius is to the monk guy in the capital from 'Game of Thrones'). Helena Bonham Carter is also excellent as Ophelia. She plays it straight very well in her fist scenes, and later turns all 'Harry Potter' with the same flourish as she later would when playing the crazed witch.

The "to be or not to be" speech was done alright, though I've seen better. It was a good move having him look at the shelved skeletons as he rants. Most of the character placement during the key moments was fairly unimaginative, but you can't go wrong with what they're doing traditionally, and the result is fine. As it sticks to the original quite closely (though the incest element is also played way up) and could be used as an element of teaching the play. An enjoyable movie for fans of Shakespeare, but could be boring for those who just want a historical drama.

  

Hamlet: 45.1

The Woman in Black

   

I remember this being quite a big deal - Daniel Radcliffe playing the lead in a major movie (Major Movie) that wasn't Harry Potter. He did pretty well, I'd say, and from what I've seen of him in real life (a 'Qi' episode) he seems alright, so good luck to him.

In this he's a legal type who is struggling to keep his job and pay for his kid (wife died). It looks like it's set around the turn of the century (uh, that other century, not the one where I was five and I got a little coin thing from the school (ostensibly from the queen) and then lost it a week later and was sad) going by the style of the car, and I think it's set in Scotland...? looks kind of west coast anyway, but it could easily be Wales or England even, back then. Good ol' Harry P-543 takes a job in some remote village to sort through an old ladies' stuff now that she's died and doesn't have a next of kin. The house is awesome looking and big and creepy, and is on a tidal island with a little muddy road that heads out to it. Kind of like that holy isle or that place in Cornwall. So Danny R-57... uh, there's no number that rhymes with "r"... investigates for a while, and gradually turns up lots of creepy ghost stuff. This ends in a slightly disturbing scene with him and his rich friend pulling a carriage partially out of the bog so that he can dive in and pull out a boys body.

   

   

The film goes in for more tension and a general aura of danger rather than actual violence and gore, but this doesn't take away from the fear element. It follows a fairly standard haunted house story line, and so would be ranked alongside stuff like 'Insidious' were it not for the superior sets, cinematography, lighting (seriously, the lighting was a work of art at times), and the far superior acting of Daniel Radcliffe and Ciarán Hinds. It's the kind of talent that usually isn't involved with horrors, and the genre tends to still carry the stigma of being easily made and churned out every month for people to go see on dates. That's what crap like 'Insidious' and 'Mama' are, but 'The Woman in Black' is trying to be something more, and succeeding for the most part.

More of a chills rather than a thrills movie, it is none the less very well made piece. Great acting, a fair script (which, to its credit, isn't afraid to let Daniel stay silent for extended periods as he explores the house, rarely making him talk out loud like a moron), and great sets that are very of-the-time.

   

A friend said that when he was in the cinema watching this, towards the end as Daniel was running away from something someone at the back shouted "use your wand, Harry!" to an uproar of laughter. Ah, Aberdeen.

  

The Woman in Black: 43.7

V/H/S 2

The second installment of extremely gory 'Twilight Zone' episodes jammed into a pile of video tapes that pushes it's viewers to bleed from the nose eyes and ears before going insane. This movie is much the same as the original in basic premise and film style (found footage) so I'll get right into the plots.

The framing this time is a couple of somewhat useless private investigators who badly mess up a job (running away from an angry naked guy and narrowly escaping in your car bad) before immediately starting their next one. I wasn't really listening, but it was something about a kid who is living in a dilapidated little house who's parents want the PIs to check on, or something. The were told to record everything anyway, so that's why that is happening. They find the house empty, though there is blood spatter on the floor, and a pile of staticy TVs and video tapes (shocker). The guy leaves his partner to watch the tapes, while he searches the house. As the movie goes on she starts feeling weird, and eventually passes out. Then the guy comes back and is all "oh no! Her condition has continued to decline after I saw that her condition was declining and then left her to watch more videos!". Then the kid pops up and kills him, and it turns out that he has shot his lower jaw off (accident while attempting suicide for his very own video - I wonder how often that happens?) The film ends with him giving us all a thumbs up, which is nice of him.
 

   
The first video tells the tale of a guy with an eye cam that's hooked up to his brain and that is recording for clinical trials (I'm pretty sure this is the exact premise of a 'Black Mirror' episode). He starts seeing ghosts though, and is eventually killed by them. Most of this took place in his house, and the scares are all very ghostly and occasionally work quite well (bed ghost in particular). The guy is a little annoying, but it's not a bad start.

Here we go. Possibly my favourite clip in this movie. It's a simple story: a guy with a go-pro (enough reason to want him killed) is biking when he is bitten by a zombie. He turns, and then we get to follow him as he goes about looking for flesh. There is very little depth to this tale, but it's fun to watch. Not particularly scary either, but that's OK.

Next is a really creepy cult flavoured clip set in Indonesia. There are four reporters who we follow, and the cults oddly sweet mild mannered inhabitants of course turn out to be evil. It seems to be some kind of Devil worship, and there is lots of extremely gory imagery as people kill themselves and each other, or explode, or give birth to demons. The gore is over the top at times, but other than that it's very nicely put together.

Finally, we come to a group of really really really annoying children who are all abducted by aliens. There is far too much time spent on the kiddies here, and the abduction part is just wedged in for five minutes of action at the end. Didn't like it.

 Not bad, but slightly worse than it's predecessor in that it is slightly more sleek - something I don't like as it steps away from the 80s feeling of the first movie, and tries to turn this one into another slasher clone. 'V/H/S 2 is a decent horror, especially for those afflicted with a short attention span. I won't be watching the third movie, as I heard it was crap, so this is where it ends 'V/H/S'. You're really cool and funny, we should definitely stay friends though.

V/H/S 2: 45.9

V/H/S

Anthology movies don't get a good enough rap, as far as I'm concerned. Not only is this an example of a good one, it's also an example of a good found footage flick (yes, they do exist). The movie starts with a group of petty criminals who are being paid to break in to a house and steal a VHS tape. They find a body, a whole bunch of eerily staticy TVs, and an even larger pile of tapes. This story progresses slowly throughout the film, while acting as a framing device for five horror shorts.

Each one of these shorts has a different character, as each had different directors and writers. What the tapes have in common, though, is that they are all found footage, and all end gruesomely (though I rarely have any sympathy for any victims in the 'V/H/S' series, as they are all either annoying, horrible, or are having more fun than I am).
 

The first clip seems to be a cautionary tale, and features a group of hateful males being eaten by a freaky face-splitty woman. The found footage element is legitimized by one of them wearing glasses with an integrated spy cam. The social dynamics at play in all of these seem pretty good, and the writing is fair for all the clips. This one is pretty predictable (we all knew something was up with her as soon as we saw her, right?) But does feature some nice creature effects. Also I found the woman strangely adorable, even as she was having sex with and then ripping the throat out of a guy. She did like him, he just shouldn't have run away.

The second one is more of a bore fest, but ends with a pleasing twist. A ridiculously boring couple are going on a stupid trip and filming it so they can have stupid memories, and the guy is complaining constantly about getting a sun tan, washing hands after touching horses, etc. I was rooting for the murderer, who turned out to be the wife's lover, which was cool. Apart from the twist at the end and the surprisingly sudden death scene, this one wasn't very imaginative, both in conception and filming style. Filming style is where the whole movie suffers, unfortunately, as there is only so much you can do with found footage.

The third one features a group of young adults going to the country (why can't it ever be a group of people in their 40s in the city?) Turns out one of them is using the others as bait, or something, for an evil thing with a red head that causes the camera to freak out. The characters in this one all seem realistically insecure - but each in their own special way, of course. The horror elements are mostly just blurs though, and the gore is short lived.

Then there's one about a long distance relationship (so we know it ends badly) and... maybe... aliens? I've seen enough episodes of 'The X-Files' to recognise what's going on, anyway. There is some horror here, but not really many scares. As with the boring couple one, the most interesting part is the basic premise, and the twist that this creates towards the end.

Finally there is one about a group of tragically likable guys who are going to a Halloween party (so, Americans again then). They either turn up at the wrong place, or the party is really shit, as they end up interrupting an exorcism and saving the "girl" who, of course, turns out to be evil, and kills them all. The plot of this one isn't brilliant, but the horror parts are good, and it's refreshing to have some characters that are actually likable.
Overall, sure it's pretty dumb, but the heavy music that plays at the end over old footage of the gang trashing abandoned houses seems to tell me that they are aware of this. It's dumb-fun. A good one to watch late at night with a friend, or whatever. If you don't like one short, maybe you'll like the next one, and the found footage element is explained in a not too terrible way.

V/H/S: 47.0