Cheap Thrills: What Would You Do For A Million?

Cheap Thrills is a crime, dark comedy film directed E.L Katz. The plot sees a rich couple pay two poor hard done by men an ever-increasing amount of money too do things for their amusement. They make the men compete through a series of wagers that become increasingly dark, including mutilation and eating a dead dog.

I think the premise of this film leaves a lot of food for thought, the question it left me with is how far are we willing to go to be rich? The two men in this film are in dire need of cash, Craig (Pat Healy), is one the verge of being evicted, which would result in him and his young family becoming homeless and Vince (Ethan Embry) risks going to prison every day through what he does to make money. Despite this I think the question can apply to us all, if someone offered you a million pounds/dollars whatever, what would you do for it?

I was glad that the bets that the men had to do to earn the money were all tasteful, yes, the dog eating scene was uncomfortable, but at least it was shot well so we didn’t see too much of it. My point is that this film could have been a lot sicker, a lot darker and I am glad it didn’t go in that direction.

The film has a lot of great twists and turns and you can never really tell where it is going to go, just when you think that you have figured out what is going on it takes another path, none of the characters or events are what you think they’re.

Embry is the only member of the cast that leave an impression, his Vince is deeply hateable, and you see over the course of the film that there is nothing he won’t do to get the money, including cheating. He is a great love to hate character.

A question I have for the film, or anyone who has seen it, is what was the point of Sara Paxton’s character? She does nothing, she says nothing, the only reason I can see they wrote her in was to have sex with Craig which if true would be icky and exploitative. Her character literally might have 3 lines in the whole film, a lot of the time she just stairs off into space.

Overall, the questions the film raises are more interesting than the film itself. However the film is worth watching for those questions alone.

Pros.

Ethan Embrey.

It is done tastefully.

It raises some neat questions.

Cons.

Other than Embrey that characters are forgettable.

Sara Paxton’s character.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

House Of The Devil: The 80’s Will Never Die

House Of The Devil is an 80’s themed possession horror film directed by Ti West. The plot sees struggling student Samantha (Jocelin Donahue), take a babysitting job so she can pay to move into her own place. However, after she arrives at the house, she quickly begins to realise that something isn’t right and as the night progresses thing take a turn for the demonic.

My feelings on Ti West as a director are mixed, his style of directing is more miss than hit for me; I lovingly refer to him as a poor man’s Adam Wingard. I didn’t like The Babysitters, I thought it was disjointed and clumsy and I didn’t like his section in The ABC’s Of Death, I thought it was tasteless and cheap. So when I realised, he was the director of this I didn’t have high hopes.

That said, I actually enjoyed this film. Did it have it issues? Sure. A lot of it felt too drawn out with not a lot happening, and the use of spiking the audio after a scare started to become unpleasant to listen to after a while, but apart from that I thought it was enjoyable.

I enjoyed the 80’s aesthetic of the film, my favourite sequences of the film were the opening credits and the bit when Samantha was dancing around the house, I loved the goofy tone of the film in this regard. I thought the songs were great and I truly believe the 80’s will never die.

What’s more the performances are surprisingly good, the two I would draw attention to are Greta Gerwig as Megan and Tom Noonan as Mr Ulman. Gerwig is memorable as Sam’s best friend Megan, who guesses something is wrong right from the beginning. Gerwig has some great comedic moments and easily manages to impress; sadly she isn’t around for long. Noonan on the other hand, is creepy and imposing from the moment he appears on screen, he manages to do a lot with very little and gives a memorable performance.

Overall, this is a surprisingly good haunted house/possession horror film, with some strong performances.

Pros.

Noonan and Gerwig.

The 80’s feel of it.

Some good scares.

Cons.

Technical issues/ audio spiking.

It is overly drawn out.

Lena Dunham takes you out of the film.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Found Footage 3D: A Whole Other Dimension Of Average

Found Footage 3D is a horror film directed by Steven DeGennaro. The plot is about a budding group of filmmakers making a found footage film which becomes menacingly real, when they demonic monster of their film spills out into the real world the usual hijinks ensue.

This film had promise, the premise lent it the ability to be to found footage films what Scream was to slasher films. When I first started to watch this film, I thought it would be a smart film that would point out all the ridiculous things about this subgenre and be somewhat tongue in cheek and the beginning is suggestive towards this being the case.

However, as the film progress you realise something, this film is not mocking the genre, nor is it a homage or a tribute, it is just yet another found footage movie that is exactly the same as the rest. After the satirical start, events play out just like they would in any number of other found footage films and it all just feel very been there and done that. Yes, it is not the fault of the film that the genre is played out, but it is there fault that the filmmakers behind his film thought to add to the genre rather than change it.

The characters are the same collection you would expect from this sort of film and everything is incredibly formulaic. The leader of the group Derek (Carter Roy), is an intensely unlikable person, this must have surely been by design, though I don’t know why it would be as this leads you to want him to die for the entirety of the film, only to get a very disappointing death at the end of the film, leaving you feeling disappointed.

That would be a great way to sum up this film disappointing.

Overall, this film is a waste of time and is squanders its opportunity to be something different.

Pros.

The ending is good and tense.

The premise is unique.

Cons.

It wastes its potential.

It is painfully average.

Worst of all it is disappointing.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

The ABC’s Of Death: Bring Back Moral Panics!

The ABCs Of Death is a 26-part horror anthology film with each segment being directed by a different person and being about a different letter of the alphabet. The film features such popular directors as Adam Wingard and Ben Wheatley.

Before I get into the review in depth, I just want to say don’t watch this film! I understand the need in cinema, especially in the horror genre, to be shocking and boundary pushing, but this film is just cheap shock value, it has no class, no taste, it is just edgy for the sake of being edgy. An example of my point, in Ti West’s segment M Is For Miscarriage the whole point of the story is a women looking for a plunger to push her stillborn kid down the toilet, there is nothing more to it than that, it is handled poorly and with questionable taste; also that is one of the more tame examples from this anthology.

There are plenty of other segments that feature, rape, paedophilia, illusions to bestiality, dog fighting and many other horrible things, not one of them is handled with any taste, it is all shock for shock value. Surprisingly one of the ones I just mentioned the dog fighting one directed by Marcel Sarmiento, is probably the one with the most taste; that is not something I expected to be writing this morning.

I can break down the shorts into 4 categories, good or at least well done, these are the segments by Wingard, Wheatly, Adrian Garcia Bogliano, Lee Hardcastle and Banjong Pisanthanakun. The weird stuff this includes the furry segment, the farting segment and the final segment. The average/ boring stuff, this includes the surfing segment and the life cycle one and then the offensively bad/ done in poor taste, which includes most everything else. So as you can see it is truly a mixed bag, with very few well done segments.

Finally, unlike something like V/H/S where are all of the segments worked together, they were separate and individual, but they all had the same feel and tone, the tone in this film is wildly all over the place, you have really dark unpleasant segments, followed by light and fluffy stuff and it is jarring to say the least.

Overall, this has been one of the toughest films I have watched recently and not only do I not recommend it, I advise you to stay away from it, you could probably find more cultured nuanced horror on Youtube. A black mark on some of the biggest names in horror.

Pros.

There is about 5/26 good segments.

Cons.

Most of the segments are horrible.

It is incredibly hard to watch.

It is done in such poor taste I would call it offensive.

The tonal inconsistencies and also the lack of effort by some, looking at you Ti West.

1/5

Dead Shack: Zombies Gotta Eat

Dead Shack is a comedy horror film directed by Peter Ricq. The plot sees a family go to stay in the countryside, once they’re there the children of the family realise that there is something wrong with the woman next-door; she is feeding people to her zombie family, and their parents seem to be next on the menu.

The first 45 minutes of this film are a slog, boring, confusing, and poorly done. The opening cinematography choice of using a collection of bird’s eye shots, while we hear diegetic audio that we can’t see, is jarring and not nice to watch. This turned me off the film before it had even begun.

It is also confusing because as we are introduced to the characters, all of whom are incredibly bland barring the father of the family Roger (Donovan Stinson), we don’t understand how they are related. This is particularly true of Jason (Matthew Nelson-Mahood), even after watching it till the end, I still don’t understand why he was there or who he was to the family; it seems needless obtuse.

The only positive of this first half of the film is Roger, the dad, who is hilarious. Comedy in this film is a strange beast because whenever anyone other than Roger makes a joke it falls flat and is painfully unfunny, but when Roger does it he actually manages to make you laugh; reminding you that this film is supposed to be a comedy horror, rather than just bland. This a testament to Stinson’s comedic abilities.

The second half of the film is better as it focuses on the showdown between the kids and the neighbour, there is no weird cinematography or editing choices, it flows much better, it actually gives you some faith in the film. The showdown itself is well done and we get some nice gore and a few shocks, it is not enough to be remembered after you have finished it mind, but it is still far, far better than the first half.

Overall, this is an okay film, there are a few good jokes and the second half is watchable. However, the first half is a real drag to watch so I really can’t recommend it.

Pros.

Donovan Stinson.

The second half really turns it around.

Cons.

Bad filmmaking decisions.

Terrible characters.

One of the worst first halves I’ve seen in a long time.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Zombie Spring Breakers: Hans After Peep Show

Zombie Spring Breakers is a horror comedy directed by Andy Edwards. The plot sees a group of young people head off to Ibiza to escape all the pressure of back home, namely a zombie outbreak. However, surprise surprise the party island hasn’t been able to keep the zombies out and the island becomes infected soon after their arrival and our plucky group needs to escape.

This is great horror junk food; will it change the world or reinvent the genre? No. However, it is good for a few good laughs and some gory kills. This is defiantly a zombie comedy rather than a horror comedy as there is no horror in this film at all, this film doesn’t even consider trying to balance the two genre it just throws everything into the comedy.

With that it mind, this film is funny it does have it’s moments, not all of the jokes land it isn’t a joke a minute, none stop, laughing fit, but it will give you a smile or two while you watch it. The main comedic force in this film is Matt King (of Peep Show fame), who plays the film’s villain, evil club owner Karl. King has all the best lines and every time we get to see him interact with another member of the cast or deliver a line; we get to see why he is such a talented performer; if it wasn’t for him this film would be easily forgotten.

The rest of the cast is fine, they are serviceable enough, they won’t blow you away. None of them are really memorable and you will forget them when the film ends. They are the usual collection of stereotypes and character types, as you probably aren’t surprised, but at least they seem to have good on-screen chemistry together.

Overall, this is the sort of film that won’t affect you either way if you miss it, however if one night it is on the TV and you’re bored and maybe a little drunk there is far worse things to watch.

Pros.

Matt King.

The cast have good chemistry.

Cons.

The characters are boring, bland and forgettable.

There is no horror.

Lots of it makes no sense at all.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Tully: Help When Needed

Tully is a comedy drama film directed by Jason Reitman. It tells the story of a struggling mum of three Marlo (Charlize Theron), who forms a bond with her night nanny Tully (Mackenzie Davis). Tully seems to make everything in Marlo’s life better, while always remaining mysterious and wise beyond her years.

Let’s start off with the most important bit, the twist. In the final moments of the film it is revealed that Tully never existed and that everything that she has done was actually Marlo, having some sort of mental break. The twist isn’t hugely surprising, as right from the beginning there is clearly something off about Tully, however due to the good writing it is never obvious quite what is going on and there are multiple red herrings throughout that throw you off what is actually going on.

This film I believe is classified under the wrong genre, rather than being a comedy film, or even a dark comedy, it is by all means a horror film. It shows motherhood and parenthood as hellish, a never-ending cycle of sleepless nights and screaming kids, this film is enough to put anyone off wanting to have kids.

Mark Duplass plays Marlo’s brother Craig and even though he is only onscreen a very little bit he is terrific every second he is on screen. The two share a scene together and it is electric, and they have a great on-screen connection together.

On top of this the relationship between Tully and Marlo is also fantastic, the two women have a great bond, that sometimes verges on the extreme; which is highlighted in one really uncomfortable scene. Mackenzie Davis is amazing as always; she has a great quirky energy to her that reminded me in a lot of ways of Ellen Page in Juno.

Overall, the performances in this film are terrific and its depiction of motherhood is grounded and realistic; which makes this film a horror in every sense of the word. This film is an acquired taste, but if you give it a go you will see that it has something powerful to say.

Pros.

The performances.

The writing.

The realistic depiction of motherhood.

Cons.

The twist.

Some of the scenes are quite uncomfortable to watch and they don’t add much.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mayhem: Corporate Is A Killer

Mayhem is horror comedy film directed by Joe Lynch. The plot sees hard working office worker Derek (Steven Yuen), trying to reclaim his job amidst a pandemic outbreak. This pathogen breaks down people’s inhibitions and makes them give into their baser impulses including lust and murder. In a very Raid esque way, Derek and pissed off client Melanie (Samara Weaving), have to beat/kill each one of the important office figures to get their key cards allowing them to get to the top of the building and plead their respective cases.

This film is excellent, it manages to tap into to that inner anger that anyone who has ever worked a job they hate has within them, pure rage. This becomes a nice undertone to the film that when coupled with the copious amounts of gore throughout the film feels almost primal.

The gore is top notch, it feels like punctuation to a bloody point, never does it feel needless or gratuitous it feels just right. My favourite kill in the whole film is when they disembowel ‘The Reaper’ when a handsaw, it is so unexpected and well done it made me laugh with gory glee.

Both Yuen and Weaving are on top form here, Yuen is believable as a man pushed to the edge. He manages to be easy to root for despite all the bad things he does throughout the film, more over Derek’s voice over also leads to many hilarious moments that are genuinely funny and sharp.

Weaving once again proves that not only is she a great upcoming talent, but also a budding action heroine. She has great on-screen chemistry with Yuen and the two make for a great pair, I would love to see them in more together. Weaving plays the role of Melanie with the same metal charm as she has shown in her other big screen performances thus far and every second of her performance here is magnificent.

Overall, this film has a really frustrated feel to it, it feels angry at the world and it is a hell of a watch. We go on a journey with these characters and the ending feels very satisfying definitely worth the watch.

Pros.

Yuen and Weaving are both fantastic.

It has a great angry energy to it.

The gore is spectacular.

The ending feels satisfying.

Cons.

It does get a little repetitive towards the end.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Hills Have Eye: Keep On Driving

The Hills Have Eyes is a horror film directed by Wes Craven. The plot sees a family traveling through the desert on their way to California, when they stop midway through their trip they come under attack from a group of cannibalistic murders a battle for survival quickly ensues.

This was my first time watching this film and I am pleased to say it holds up well, it was frightening and menacing throughout and best of all it had a constant sense of dread that would not let up. Right from the first scene of the film you realise that something is wrong, then it builds and builds throughout. The moment when Beauty, the dog is killed, made me sit up and take notice

This film makes you wonder just who is out there, could there really be cannibals in the hills? All of the savage cannibals are terrifying, but Jupiter (James Witworth), was perhaps the most unsettling. The moment when Jupiter nails Big Bob Carter (Russ Grieve), the father of the family, to a makeshift cross it truly shows you just how evil these people are and perfectly illustrates what is to come. I liked the fact that they took the time to explain Jupiter’s backstory I thought it made him more rounded as a character.

I thought the choice to have most of the heroes be horribly inept, expect for when they manage to kill Jupiter in the end and instead have Beast, the other dog, be the one that picks off most of the baddies, is almost wonderfully comical. I would guess that it is not supposed to be humorous, but seeing this dog destroying this some what organised/experienced killer family one by one could be a film in and of itself.

The thing I like the most about this film is the fact that it feels stand alone, the ending neatly wraps everything up without too many lose threads. Of course there was a sequel, but it feels like this film closes the arc, which is how films should be, you shouldn’t have to watch another film to know how the last film ended.

Overall there is a reason that this is a horror masterpiece, a must watch for sure, Craven is a master of the genre.

Pros.

Beast the dog.

The explanation and backstory.

It has great atmosphere.

Everyone is giving great performances.

Cons.

Some of it almost feels comical and that is not great for a horror film.

4.5/5

The Stepford Wives: The Perfect Spouse?

The Stepford Wives is a black comedy science fiction film directed by Frank Oz. The film revolves around former TV executive Joanne Eberhart (Nicole Kidman), who after a career mishap moves to a quaint little town in Connecticut to start anew. However, once she is there, she begins to become increasing alarmed at the strange goings on in Stepford Connecticut. The women are all subservient homemakers and the men spend all their time at the lodge, a place where business is conducted and people change, but what is going on? As it turns out, neural programming.

This film is a fascinating study of gender norms and what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man. The conversation proves to be illuminating, albeit a bit silly, as Joanne probes the depth of how far people are prepared to go to have the ‘perfect’ spouse.

Kidman is fantastic and manages to handle the more intense, scarier moments with a sense of weight and gravity as well as play off the other characters in the sillier, funnier moments. After all this is more of a wacky black comedy than a serious look at society. The film manages to walk the tightrope well never being too silly, nor being too serious; the tone is pitch perfect.

Christopher Walken plays Mike the leader of the Stepford men, or so you are led to believe, as always Walken is magnificent and oozes so much charisma it is hard to take you eyes off him. You buy him as this evil doctor/ cult leader figure, and he gives off palpable malice throughout.

Matthew Broderick as Walter Joanne’s husband proves to be the weak link in this film. This in my mind is all down to one scene, in the final act of the film there is a scene where it looks as though Walter has turned Joanne into one of the mindless Stepford wives, however he hasn’t. My issue with this is the character and Broderick plays him seems like the sort who would do it, the hero turn doesn’t suit the character and isn’t hugely believable. Broderick plays slimy well, so I find it hard to buy him as the hero.

Overall, despite a miscast Broderick, this film still manages to be both thought provoking and funny, something very few films achieve. Definitely worth a watch.

Pros.

Christopher Walken.

Nicole Kidman.

The underpinning social debate.

The good dark comedy.

Cons.

Matthew Broderick.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke