Dracula: How To Destroy Potential In One Episode

Dracula is a three-part horror TV series developed by Sherlock creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. The story is yet another retelling of Bram Stoker’s seminal novel Dracula this time with a twist. This time around the Harker family take up a new position in the narrative, and the struggle between Dracula and Van Helsing is shown to exist across multiple lifetimes and members of the Van Helsing family.

This series left a bitter taste in my mouth. I love Dracula and I’ve read the book several times and consumed most media related to it and my issue with this iteration of the story wasn’t the changes or the fresh take, but how they chose to end it. That third episode was woeful, and that seems to be near universally accepted. Not only do they have Lucy Westenra, and the rest of the characters as 20 something club goers, which is painful to see, and informs me that Moffat and Gatiss haven’t ever actually talked to a young person in their lives. It is beyond cringey. Worse so, they decide to have Van Helsing and Dracula die together almost as lovers, which is not only a slap to the face, but also a kick in the balls.

It is such a shame that the third episode is as bad as it is, as the other two episodes were nothing sort of terrific. I liked the changes to the established story in the first few episodes as they made sense, and the direction the story took was fresh and interesting. I liked most of the stuff they were putting down, it had just the right amount of good horror mixed in as well. What’s more the new Dracula Claes Bang is magnificent; he is my favourite on-screen iteration of the character so far. He plays the character with just enough humour to be likeable and just enough menace that you never want to let your guard down. I would love to see more of his interpretation of the character, but sadly we will never get that.

Overall, the first two episodes of this show had it set to be something special, but the horrific, cringey mess that was the third episode not only shot the series in the foot, but also put a stake through its heart and set it on fire. The first two episodes would have been 5/5, but that third episode ruins it all.

Pros.

Claes Bang Is Great.

The First Two Episodes Are Magnificent.

Some Of The Changes Work.

Cons.

The Cringe Inducing, Lore Destroying, Baffling Third Episode.

The Idea Of Having Dracula and Van Helsing Romantically Linked.

3/5 and that’s being generous.

Reviewed By Luke

The Wicker Man: Not A Bee In Sight

The Wicker Man is a British horror film directed by Robin Hardy. The film centres on Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward), who travels to the remote Summerisle to try and find a missing girl, and once he arrives, he finds that the locals have abandoned Christianity and have embraced a pagan religion that involves human sacrifice.

This film is the stuff of filmmaking legend not just in the horror genre, but in British cinema in general. It is one of the best UK horror exports. The reason why it is so revered is because it plays on the fear of ‘others’: people who aren’t like us, and in this case in positions them as a direct threat to Christianity. There is a shocking and unpredictable nature to this film which is accompanied by a creep building sense of fear and permeates the whole film.

To me this film reminded me somewhat of Children of the Corn as they both had an underlying sense of something isn’t right here and has the antagonists worship some other evil deity, that is proven to be real to some extent. The Wicker Man also plays on the idea of being single minded, the protagonist is so convinced that his Christian way is right that he is blind to everything going on around him; a mistake that proves to be fatal.

The late great Christopher Lee appears in this film and he is phenomenal. Not only is he terrifying but he has that cult leader quality; the ability to convince others to do what he says through sheer magnetism. Lee proves his worth as a horror master a veteran of the genre, his Lord Summerisle should give you goose bumps.

There are some explicit scenes here and there that serve a purpose narratively but do feel a little over the top. The thing about these scenes is that they seem to come out of nowhere, they serve the purpose of showing how the pagan society clashes with the protagonist’s Christian views and can be viewed as quite shocking, especially when the film came out.

Overall this film is a masterpiece of horror filmmaking, it has been copied into modern horror (here’s looking at you Midsommar) because there is a timeless quality to this story that will never go out of fashion. A Must Watch!

Pros.

A Fantastic Culture Clash.

A Compelling Mystery.

Christopher Lee.

A Very Unique Identity.

Great Atmosphere And Horror.

Cons.

None

5/5

Reviewed By Luke

Velvet Buzzsaw: An Exercise In Pretension

‘Velvet Buzzsaw’ is a satirical supernatural horror film written and directed by Dan Gilroy. The plot of the film revolves around a collection of painting that is both captivating and deadly; there is something alive within the paintings that either kills people or makes them kill themselves. The film also serves to lambast and spoof the art world.

Before I get into this review, I want to say that ‘Nightcrawler’ Gilroy’s other work with Jake Gyllenhaal is a masterpiece, being able to really show off its dark sensibilities and mustering a fantastic performance from Gyllenhaal. There is something about ‘Nightcrawler’ that makes it alarming every time you see it, even though by that point you know how it ends.

The same can’t be said for ‘Velvet Buzzsaw’. My main issue with this film is how up its own arse it is, it seems to think it is the best film that you will see all year; which it isn’t. The satirical elements of the film fail so much so, that I wasn’t even aware it was supposed to be that way until I sat down to research this review. The only thing that might clue you into the fact that this is supposed to be satirical is the fact that all the characters are deeply unlikeable; though I thought that was just bad writing.

Rene Russo and Gyllenhaal try their best and give good performances, which serve as a saving grace for this film, but only barely. The rest of the cast are terrible, Toni Collette’s performance has zero energy and feels like she is trying to give a bad performance for whatever reason. Zawe Ashton has one facial expression for the whole film and to call her wooden would be generous and ‘Stranger Things’ own Natalia Dyer feels like she is only in the film on Netflix’s behest to try and get more people to be like, “oh she was in Stranger Things I should probably rewatch that”.

The horror concepts of this film are interesting and there are a few good scares peppered throughout. However, they just aren’t enough, this film is 20 per cent inspired horror and then 80 per cent lost up its own arse as to how good it is; which is a terrible shame as I was excited to watch a film from the writer-director behind Nightcrawler and his strange, but always excellent muse Jake Gyllenhaal.

Overall this is an exercise in pretension that falls flat whilst also being incredibly hollow.

Pros.

Jake Gyllenhaal Is Always Fantastic.

Some Good Horror Moments.

An Interesting Concept.

Cons.

The Terrible Cast.

The Smug Sense Of Self This Film Has.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Eden Lake: Broken, Boring and Blatant

‘Eden Lake’ is a British horror film written and directed by James Watkins. The plot sees a couple going on holiday to a quarry, in some unnamed part of England, whilst there they are stalked by a group of young people, who want to torture and eventually kill them.

I find this film offensively bad. My main issue with it, and if you don’t like politics sorry skip to the next paragraph, is that it demonises the working class in Britain. ‘Eden Lake’ was one of those films that explored the idea of ‘Broken Britain’ much like it’s contemporary ‘Harry Brown’. The issue with these sorts of films is that it often portrays the narrative often from a very middle-class viewpoint, this film especially. We are supposed to be scared of the dangerous ‘chav’ kids, rather than think of the sort of life they have had that has led them to this point. This whole narrative to me feels cheap and exploitative. Furthermore, it perpetuates this false idea that if people of means leave a big city or their home, they will be immediately forced into danger.

Not only that, but the writing feels like a collection of horror clichés with the protagonists Steve (Michael Fassbender), and Jenny (Kelly Reilly), being written to be the dumbest possible characters. You know when you watch a horror film and you are saying to yourself, “Switch The Lights on” or “Don’t Go Up There”, but they do it anyway, as they seem programmed to do the dumbest possible people and they do things that nobody would do in that situation: well that’s how the characters are here. I like horror films like ‘You’re Next’ where the characters are actually written with some intelligence, rather than deliberately doing stupid things that put them in danger and then just sitting around to face the consequences. Yes, I know a lot of the time characters are written like this to advance the plot or to set certain scenes up, but once again it feels very lazy.

Overall for a cheap low budget British horror film, it could have been a lot worse, but even still it doesn’t excuse the weak class baiting sort of writing and the paper-thin characters. I am glad that Fassbender and Reilly went on to bigger and better things and this film can be thrown in the bin of history and left to be forgotten.

Pros.

It’s Not The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen.

Cons.

It Feels Cheap.

It’s Manipulatively Written.

It Doesn’t Belong In Modern Times & It Has A Bad Message.

The Characters Aren’t Even Paper Thin, They’re Somehow Lesser Than That.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Creep 2: Netflix, Give Mark Duplass All Your Money Please

‘Creep 2’ is a found footage psychological horror film directed by Patrick Brice. The plot this time sees online personality Sara (Desiree Akhavan), answer serial killer Josef (Mark Duplass), here called Aaron’s online ad, to film him for the day. He has lost his drive as a serial killer and is stuck in a rout: as such he wants Sara to make a documentary about him to try and relight the spark, he once had for killing.

This film does something very few other films can do, it manages to one-up its fantastic predecessor. ‘Creep 2’ plays up the more comedic elements of the film this time around and it makes for a hilarious experience that also has some great chilling moments: managing to not only do justice to these two elements but do them fantastically well.

Duplass is terrific once again, proving that comedians do horror really well, he manages to make this evil serial killer likeable and to an extent sympathetic. It turns out midway through the film that Aaron plans to kill himself at the end of the day and have Sara carry on his work, this is genuinely shocking and you don’t see it coming. The relationship between the two is simply fantastic it has shades of mentor-mentee, but also shades of a serial killer couple. The ending of the film is highly suggestive that there will be more for these two in the future.

From a dark comedy perspective, this film is a masterclass it compares being a serial killer to being a director who is on a downward spiral and to me that is incredibly funny. The humour works really well and meshes with the tone perfectly, both Akhavan and Duplass have moments of comic genius.

Akhavan is amazing, she has a fantastic repour with Duplass and the two do great things, I would like to see her come back in the future and maybe become a serial killer herself. She meets Duplass’s crazy and raises it.

Overall this film is a triumph and manages to one up a magnificent first entry, the relationship between Sara and Aaron is great and something I want to see explored more in a third film. If you like ‘What We Do In The Shadows’ you will like this, I guarantee it. By playing up the more comedic aspects ‘Creep 2’ is elevated to a whole new level.

Pros.

Akhavan Is Amazing.

So Is Duplass.

Serial Killer Couple?

The Ending.

Cons.

I Want More.

4.5/5

Reviewed By Luke

Bird Box: You Have To Be Blind To Enjoy This

‘Bird Box’ is a post-apocalyptic thriller film directed by Susanne Bier. The plot follows Malorie (Sandra Bullock), as she tires, to protect her children from strange supernatural entities that have taken over the world, said creatures drive people to madness if they see them. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Josh Malerman.

I remember when this film came out a lot of people were talking about it and it had more than a few moments in the sun. However, upon seeing it now I really don’t see what is so impressive about it, I know the novel came out years ago, but a lot of the film’s elements had been done before and better in other films like ‘A Quiet Place’ and ‘Children Of Men’. These elements are things like creatures that prey on a certain sense in this case sight as well as a family having to survive in this new world.

There is nothing new about this film at all. It is a collection of end of the world clichés and character stereotypes. Not only that, but the film puts a lot of it’s focus on the humans that have not been driven to suicide by the creatures: because they were already mad, they take up the role of the antagonists in the film and the creatures themselves almost become a secondary villain. I think this is an annoying trend that a lot of these type of films do and is also a huge missed opportunity. There are hundreds of films about humans doing horrific things to each other most of them better than this, so why does this film not choose to focus on the one thing that makes it unique it’s monsters.

What’s more, the human characters are boring, really really boring. They are really hard to care about as they just seem like a collection of characters that you have seen before, this film even wastes John Malkovich. The one character that is interesting and feels like you want to get to know her is Sarah Paulson’s Jessica, but she is killed off within the first 10 minutes of the film.

Overall this is an incredibly generic film and in this the year 2020 that just isn’t passable anymore, as we have so much choice that things like this should fail to send a message that we want better, we want characters that actually feel like characters, we want a story that hasn’t been done so many times before, and we want to see the monsters in a form other than wind!

Pros.

Sarah Paulson For The 10 Minutes We Get Her.

Cons.

It’s Been Done Better Before.

It’s Generic.

The Story Is Boring.

We Don’t See The Monsters We Are Just Told About Them.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Nightingale: The Heart Of Darkness

‘The Nightingale’ is a period drama film directed by Jennifer Kent, her second film after the critically acclaimed ‘The Babadook’. The plot of the film revolves around Irish convict Clare (Aisling Franciosi), who suffers a horrific tragedy that result in her losing everything, the events that follow show her as she treks across the Tasmania bush in search of the men that wronged her; So she can enact a brutal act of retribution upon them.

Before I get into this review, I just want to say this is a grueling film to watch, deeply uncomfortable and unpleasant at times, but that seems to be by design. There are disturbing acts of violence and sexual violence depicted in this film that set up Claire’s character motivation and show the horrific place that the Tasmanian Bush was at this point in time.

If that doesn’t put you off there is a lot to appreciate about this film. Firstly, is the attention to detail payed in the setting and how the events of the story play out, the 1825 Van Diemen’s Land that Kent brings to life is unlike anything I had previously seen. The world this film presents is harsh and incredibly unforgiving and it makes you aware of horrors of history that you might not have been aware of.

The performances are excellent as well. Franciosi is a marvel to behold the emotions that her character conveys are both striking and affecting. She is entirely believable as a woman who has lost everything and is now a ghost of the person she was before, driven only by revenge. Furthermore, the gradual friendship she forms with Aboriginal tracker Billy (Baykail Ganambarr), she sweet and brings a bit of levity to an otherwise deeply oppressive, depressing film.

Ganambarr is excellent especially when you consider that this is this first feature film performance. His character of Billy not only brings some humour to the film, but also provides a door into the Aboriginal world which we don’t often see represented in cinema. Billy does at times outshine Claire, but both are fantastic.

Sam Claflin is also in this film he plays the sadistic antagonist Hawkins. Claflin is quickly making a name for himself as a skilled actor especially for playing villains, he plays a loathsome bastard better than anyone else. He completely loses himself in the role and delivers yet another magnificent performance.

Overall, this film can be hard to watch at times, you will feel the urge to turn it off, but if you can stick with it there is something special here. ‘The Nightingale’ is far more of a nuanced take on the Rape-Revenge subgenre and has a lot to say and has some great performances to back it up.

Pros.

Powerful.

Excellent Performances.

A Great Follow Up.

Bringing Attention To Issues.

Cons.

Very Very Very Hard To Watch At Times.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Creep: Another Comedian To Horror Maestro Success Story

‘Creep’ is an independent found footage psychological horror film directed by Patrick Brice. The narrative follows Aaron (Played by Brice), as a camera man who answers an online ad, to go and film Josef (Mark Duplass) for the day. As the day plays out Aaron quickly realises that Josef is not who he claims to be, and things take a turn for the worse.

I had heard praise for this film for quite some time, but for one reason or another I hadn’t got around to seeing it and now that I have, I can tell you it is terrific. Found footage as a genre as been done to death, no argument can be made that will convince me otherwise, with the likes of the Blair Witch revival and the continued Paranormal Activity franchise, I believed there was nothing left in this genre that could shock or perhaps scare me, I was wrong.

The reason why ‘Creep’ is scary is all down to the writing and the characterisation of Josef. When we are introduced to him, we are told he is a sick man with only a few weeks to live, this get us to feel sorry for him, as the film progress we see that he is a little odd, but crucially we still like him. Even in the films third act when everything has become very manic Josef is still treated like a sympathetic character that’s why Aaron goes to see him one last time.

The complete shifts in mood that Duplass so perfectly brings to the screen wherein we see Josef go from Sad to Manic to Evil are chilling. With the final reveal showing us that Aaron is not the first victim, but instead one of many, making you as an individual, question how you could be so wrong about a character as for the most part of the film you thought he was a likeable sympathetic character.

As I have said before in other reviews, I find mental illness and the threat humans poses to each other and man-made evil, much more frightening than a demon or a ghost. I believe 100% that it is this focus on a threat that is very real, something that could realistically happen to any of us at any time, that makes this film so scary.

A genuinely shocking horror film that showed me there was still some life in the found footage genre.

Pros.

The Novel Approach To Found Footage.

Duplass.

The Excellent Tension And Scares.

Making You Question Which Characters You Trust In Future.

Cons.

It’s A Little Bit Goofy At Times When It Shouldn’t Be.

Cam: Often Extreme

‘Cam’ is a psychological horror film about cam girl Lola_Lola (Madeline Brewer), who one day finds that her account has been taken over by a girl who looks like her, a double: she then races to try and regain control of her account and stop the damage the double is doing to her life.

‘Cam’ is an uncomfortable watch that is the best way to describe it. It has many scenes that will make your skin crawl and will repulse you. There is a scene in the film’s third act where Lola, or Alice as that is her non-cam name, repeatedly hits a table with her face breaking her nose: there are minutes in this sequence where we can see her nose literally hanging off her face. I am not opposed to gore in any way, I love the work of Eli Roth, but there is something about this part of the film that made me feel sick. That is my main complaint with this film, it often goes too far.

The same can be said with the cam scenes themselves which again sometimes go a little far and border on soft-core porn. I understand that the writer of this film was a cam girl herself at one stage in her life and wanted to originally make this film a documentary, but even still.

Brewer plays both of the personas really well; I mean both Lola and her double as well as Alice and Lola. Throughout the course of the film you start to care for her and fear for her as she is in real danger. The threats in this film aren’t always what you would expect them to be: this isn’t a film like ‘US’ where the double try and get rid of the person, rather the threats come from the world of the cam girls. By that I mean the people who are paying them, some of Alice’s clients become quite threatening towards her and it makes you think about what would drive someone to willingly put themselves in danger like that.

As strange as it might be to say about a film revolving around cam girls, this film really makes you think. The interesting thing for me is that the double isn’t the antagonist of the film not really, the real antagonist of the film seems to be the clients and the world of camming which for me makes the film far more interesting. This is not an easy film to watch, but if you do manage to sit through it there are some fascinating ideas being floated around.

Pros.

Making The World The Threat.

Brewster.

A Great Sense Of Tension.

Some intriguing Ideas Being Explored.

Cons.

A Little Too Graphic For Me, In Multiple Regards.

The Woman In Black, Angel of Death: The Fight For A Random Orphan

‘The Woman In Black: Angel of Death’ is a supernatural horror film and is a sequel to 2012 ‘Woman In Black’ film. The plot this time around follows Eve Parkin (Phoebe Fox), a school teacher who accompanies some of her pupils out of the city during the London Blitz, the house they arrive at is, of course, Eel Marsh House; home to the infamous Woman In Black.

If you read my review of the first film, you know that I love the ‘Woman In Black’ it is a classic British ghost story and one of the best horror films in modern years. However, at no point did I or, anyone else think that it needed a sequel.

Angel of Death falls to the same pitfalls as ‘Sinister 2’, by that I mean they lose the mystique of their predecessor by over-exposing their villains. The reason why this film worked was that the titular woman herself was very rarely shown, a lot of the time her presences would be implied, but crucially she wasn’t shown. As a result, she remains quite a mysterious figure, and that is frightening, the issue will overly showing a villain like this is that by doing it, they become less scary.

That is something that is very true of this film: it just isn’t as scary. It tries to recapture the same creepy atmosphere as the same film and, the same sense of tension, but it can’t. Because we didn’t need this film all of the scares and, everything the Woman In Black does has been done before and better.

I never realised until I watched this film how much we needed Daniel Radcliffe, though he didn’t do anything fantastic, he is heads and shoulders better than the protagonist this time around. Eve is simply a blank slate, she is boring and generic, she has a subplot about how she had her kid taken away from her which draws a parallel with the titular Woman herself, but this is never explored enough to be impactful.

The fight over Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), a young orphan boy, between Eve and, The Woman In Black has no power at all as you don’t care about the protagonist. Whatmore, the end twist being that The Woman In Black is still around and coming for Edward is lazy, and feels like a blatant attempt to set up a sequel, very much like how ‘Sinister 2’ ended.

Overall this is a cash grab sequel if there ever was one, there is nothing new here, it is a far cry from the first film in all the worst ways and proves Daniel Radcliffe’s ability as a leading man.

Cons.
It Pales In Comparison.
The Protagonist is Bland.
It Does Nothing New With The Woman In Black.
It Demystifies The Woman In Black.
You Just Don’t Care.

Pros.
It’s Watchable.
It Has A Few Good Moments.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke