Who Needs Happy Endings (Book review: The Ruins, 2006 and film review: The Ruins, 2008)

So, there's these things called books-it's like a movie but in your head!

When I was a kid I used to read like crazy, I couldn’t get enough. It’s basically thanks to Stephen King that I love horror so much. Somewhere along the road to adulthood however, I developed the attention span of a potato and thus started watching more movies instead.

With this in mind I was seriously surprised that I finished Scott Smith’s 2006 novel ‘The Ruins’ in a mere two weeks. Let me say this, this book is aptly named because it ruined my poor brain.

The Ruins was also adapted into a film two years Later. I actually saw the movie before I read the book, but in no way did knowing what happens to the characters diminish the suspense of this terrifying read.

Seeking a more ‘off the beaten path’ experience, 6 tourists venture into the jungles of Mexico in search of some ancient Mayan ruins. They find them, but soon discover the ruins are home to a carnivorous, possibly sentient, killer vine. The locals will shoot them if they try to leave and so the story becomes an intense fight for survival atop a desolate pyramid.

Now, I know possibly what you are thinking; a plant? The antagonist is a fucking plant? But such is the way this book is written that you absolutely buy it.  The simplicity of this plot, with it’s minimal characters and one location is one of it’s advantages. Rather than trying to give any back story to the ruins and the plant, the book concentrates on the horror of survival; and what horrors they are. The book makes you confront starvation, dehydration, septicemia and more in excruciating detail.

I love the way this book is devoid of chapters and simply switches from each character’s point of view (seamlessly, I might add). The effect is a continual bombardment of emotions as well as non-stop action and suspense. Not once did I feel like I was getting a break from the onslaught of misfortune.

The Ruin’s characters are well developed. They are all slightly unlikeable but in way that makes them more human. Their story is one which sneaks up on you; not until it is told do you realise how much you had invested in Eric, Stacey, Jeff, Amy and Matias.

The tense narrative had me anxious to find out what was going to happen next. As I kept reading I felt myself getting sicker and sicker. I devoured this book and at the end I sat back feeling the ill effects of such a nihilistic story.

I felt beaten, I remember feeling the same the first time I had finished watching Martyrs (2008, directed by Pascal Laugier). I remember numbly staring at my tv until my brain finally chugged into gear to say “IT’S NOT REAL.”

The film adaption of The Ruins (2008, directed by Carter Smith) has nowhere near the power of the novel, but it has its own merits. I think I’m a bit more partial to it because of the novel, I definitely appreciate it more than the first time I watched it when it came out (nearly 10 fucking years ago-yes, you’re old.) 

A condensing of characters and therefore reshuffling of roles ensures the film is true to the majority of the story while also being a pace the movie needs to be. I will say this about the film it is well paced and never drags. 

Like the novel, the film understands its strength lies in its simplicity. The Ruins is a great addition to the survival horror sub-genre. I know survival horror was originally a gaming term but I think it can rightly stretch to films where humans are battling the elements as well as the monsters.

What I really liked about this film is that they kept the action- and gore- in the light of the sun, avoiding the trope of things only going bump in the night. ‘The Ruins’ is so bright at times you feel like you’re getting sunburnt along with the characters.

Apart from a cringe worthy and really just terrible attempt at a German accent, the cast gives watchable performances, not that fantastic but they carry the film along despite characters being less fleshed out. Reading the book has slightly skewed my judgement, because I cared so much about the book’s characters I knew I was projecting them onto the film’s ones

If could compare both the book and film versions of this story to another book and film adaption it would be The Beach, written by Alex Garland and it’s 2000 film adaption (directed by, Danny Boyle) starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The beginning premise is exactly the same and both stories deal with being sufficiently out of your element. 

Not kink shaming, no wait yes I am

The Ruins however had a lot more body horror, I loved the scenes involving it, especially the one where the vine is whispering “I want to cut it” (oh yeah sorry, did I mention the plant can talk?). I did however notice a definite switch to a male gaze in the scene in alluding to, which I know is hard to avoid in horror. I do question though, why do we need to have a woman walking around in her underwear? She’s clearly meant to be attractive, despite the self-mutilation (wait what?) so there can’t even be the excuse that it was just coincidental. Why couldn’t they have chosen a male actor to do this? To bring this question extra validity I’ll have to add a SPOILER that in the book it is a male character that goes through this. Which means they purposely changed it. The scene has no other difference so I have to assume it was played for using women’s bodies in an exploitative effort to either shock or titillate.

In the end I still think The Ruins is a neat little movie that I can’t really fault too much. It takes killer vines and a fight for survival to the only places they can really go. It does so effectively and to the point. I’d recommend this film as a good popcorn flick with friends or as something to put on when you don’t want to think too hard about what you’re watching. It’s nothing Oscar worthy but it’s fun.

I’m giving the film adaption of The Ruins a 6.5 /10

I really urge you guys to pick up the novel from somewhere. Who knows, you might find it brings the awesomeness of reading back to you too. Whether you love to read or haven’t in a while, The Ruins is an amazing book to experience. I give the novel The Ruins it a 10 out of 10.

Never been so glad not to have made it big in Hollywood (Everlasting 2016)

Reaching fame may not be everlasting, but the scars you get along the way are.

Valentina de Angelis as Jessie 

As consumers we need to be aware of the context in which what we consume is being made. Not only does this help us analyse and appreciate the things we love more but it also holds the creators and people involved accountable. Did that 8-page editorial in that fashion magazine come at the price of the model’s safety? Is this new film you’re dying to see enabling predators to slip by without consequences for their behaviour?

Of course, I’m talking about the unearthing of Hollywood’s dark underground which has importantly been going on lately. Although topical, this theme is not a new one. Thriller/horror films (such as ‘Starry Eyes’ and ‘The Neon Demon') have been alluding to it for years.

Everlasting (2016, directed by Anthony Stabley) is an indie film that recognises the exploitation of women for the modelling and entertainment industry is a horror movie in and of itself.

Adam David rocks the guyliner as Matt

The focus of main character Matt’s high school senior film project is his journey to Hollywood to find out what happened to his girlfriend Jessie. The film follows Jessie’s journey to seek fame and fortune in Hollywood as well as Matt’s effort to find the maker of the snuff film Jessie finally got her starring role in. 

A lot of time is spent on us getting to know the teenagers, with their goth inspired fashion and penchant for pushing the boundaries.They think they have it all worked out when in reality it is quickly shown just how naive they are. Watching this tragedy unfold is heart-breaking.

Everlasting flips between the found footage of Matt’s project and regular film showing us the events behind the footage. It’s a little unconventional, takes a bit of getting used to but ultimately experimentation like this is why indie films are so dynamic; because they explore new ways of telling a story.

The film has a dreamlike quality to it; achieved by the wide shots of the locations: the deserts, the streets of L.A, etc. Also, through the constant and perfect use of lighting; the sun is nearly a supporting character which bathes the film in beauty. Everlasting's soundtrack pairs perfectly with this: melodic, haunting and also featuring songs by Crystal Castles and Cold Cave.

Special mention to Actor Pat Healey for making my skin crawl 

The not so hidden gem of this movie is the supporting cast, representing the insidious side of L.A. They all do a great job of blatantly crossing the line into abusive and ultimately getting away with it. They are the is the real antagonists; Their slick words and cameras are their weapons.

The manipulating, the advantage taking, the murder-both emotionally and literally were all terrifying thanks to solid performances.

Ultimately, I enjoyed this film despite the uncomfortable creepiness it left with me. A realistic yet somehow ethereal cautionary tale, I’m giving it a 7/10.

'Everlasting' is well worth checking out now on Amazon                                    

                          

Everlasting on Amazon from SGF on Vimeo.

I do believe in fairies! (Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, 2010)

Don’t be afraid of exploring hybrid genres either, they don’t bite…….Well, sometimes they do.

Not being believed is an effective horror trope because it is a terrifying position to be in. However, it does hit a bit too close to home at the moment with victims of abuse finally speaking out. These women have more courage than any horror movie final girl.

In light of this, it has been a pleasure to discover ‘Don’t Be Afraid of the dark’ (2010, directed by Troy Nixey)- a movie which shows us that we can take people seriously, even if their stories seem unbelievable. It’s been a while since I’ve fallen in love with a movie enough to watch it over and over again like I have been over the last few weeks.

Sally is a young girl arriving at an old mansion her father is renovating. She feels lonely and confused over her parents’ divorce. Her presence awakens evil fairy-like creatures who have an appetite for children’s teeth and bones. I knew I was down for a film about evil tooth fairies as soon as the opening scene involved a chisel and hammer tooth extraction. 

Sally’s relationship with her father’s new girlfriend (Kim) goes refreshingly against the ‘evil step mother’ archetype. From the beginning Kim is supportive of Sally and cares for her despite being thrown into a motherhood she isn’t quite ready for. This female comradery was great to see play out; instead of the two female characters being pitted against each other like in so many other films. It’s an important and positive representation of female relationships that needs to be in more films.

The movie surprised me by having a good amount of realism and depth to the characters.  Then Child actor Bailee Madison (look for her all grown up in the upcoming sequel the ‘the strangers’) put on a fantastic performance, largely helped by the script which gave the character of Sally genuine reactions and statements a child her age would make. Her words were never forced or overly childlike. Guy Pearce’s father character takes on a minor role despite his big, Hollywood name. This film is foremost about Sally and Kim. It is occasionally refreshing to see male characters take a backseat, used mainly as a plot device.

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is absolutely stunning to watch. The sprawling house is a setting with just enough space and ornateness to be beautiful yet entirely cold and isolating for the Characters, especially Sally. The woods near the house look amazing and it really helps pull you into the story. This film successfully whisks you away into a neo-gothic fairy tale. The score for this film perfectly matches this and is a nostalgic reminder of big fantasy films. 

Filmed in Victoria, Australia (50/50 chance it's either a winery or kangaroo hostel)

Now, I guess I should mention this film is a remake, but I for one think Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins did wonders with the source material. I’ve watched some of the 1973 tv movie but it just wasn’t interesting enough to keep going with.  The main switch between the two films is that Sally is an adult in the old version instead of a child. I thought the change was a stroke of genius and really amped up the agency in the story

I loved the creature design too, they were creepy and rat-like. While they were CGI, it didn’t take away from the film. Which just goes to show that CGI is often not the problem- a weak film under this type of effects is what makes CGI a bad thing most of the time. I think the director is so be congratulated on bringing Del Toro’s screenplay to life so well. Del Toro had a big hand in this movie as he was also producer, it’s great to see that it matches his other cinematic masterpieces. You’re either a fan of Guillermo del Toro or you’re a fan of Guillermo del Toro; the man has made a name for himself by bringing fantasy to adults and helping us relive the sense of wonder we had when we were young.

I’m giving 'Don’t be afraid of the Dark' a  9/10.

Splatter never sounded so good (Suspiria,1977 and Berberian Sound Studio, 2012)

Argento you glad I finally embraced Italian horror? 

Confession: I have only just watched 'Suspiria' for the first time a few days ago. Although my childhood-self did have a terrifying relationship with the VHS cover at the video shop horror section. I’m sure this is a common experience with most horror fans as where else did you get the taste for the macabre if not Civic Video.

'Suspiria' (1977, directed by Dario Argento) was a hard movie for me to form an opinion on. When I started writing about it I found myself complaining for whole paragraphs about the English dubbing. I won’t go into it but I will say it ultimately ruined the immersion for me.

The plot of Suspiria as it is fairly well known by everyone who is a fan genre films; Susy starts at an international dance academy and discovers that beneath the prestigious image the school is harbouring some serious black magic. It’s a classic story but if I could say anything about the way the plot is delivered is that all the action and narrative seemed to be rushed through in the last half hour. Personally, I would have liked to see Susy’s suspicions and discoveries play out sooner and more evenly throughout the film, it would have been a great chance for some gaslighting and psychological torture of your main character.

There are good things about the movie. Its use of architecture for example is up there with Kubrick’s The Shining. The schools many rooms and hallways were actually breathtaking and It was as if the setting itself was an ominous and sinister character within the film. The use of colour in Suspiria- specifically red- is simply pure genius.As a companion piece I watched ‘Berberian Sound Studio’ (2012, directed by Peter Strickland) which, although it turned out not to be so much horror as a tight rope-tense drama, it certainly fits within our Giallo theme. 

Sound Engineer, Gilderoy is hired by an Italian horror director. His expertise in using various fruits and vegetables to create lifelike sound effects for violence and gore is needed in the film which is obviously meant to parallel ‘Suspiria’.

Also on the team are the voice actors dubbing their script over the film, which was a method used for many Italian horror classics. During his work he clashes with producers and the language barrier proves too isolating as Gilderoy discovers the horrors of what humans will do to each other in the name of their art. 

Toby Jones is fantastic in the lead role, he is an actor who never fails to give a genuine and impressive performance. All the supporting actors are also superb (with some especially strong female characters) and pulled off the gripping dynamic of isolation and manipulation.

The film takes on a surreal quality as it progresses and becomes brilliant in a way I can only compare to a David Lynch masterpiece. If you like your films to be less linear more experimental then it is for you. 'Berberian Sound Studio' is unique in the way that it’s plot and themes are directly reflected in the way it is filmed and more specifically how sound is used.

I really stress that you need to watch this film with full subtitles as it is in English and Italian and you need to understand what is being said without the other characters knowing. It becomes a complete mind-fuck as you are watching a film about creating sound effects while taking notice of the other sound effects in the narrative of the film. If you are wanting a lesson on becoming aware of the use of sound in film then this is the film to watch. Also, anything that pokes fun at the camp of 70s Giallo horror and the practice of dubbing is just icing on the cake.

In the end, while Suspiria is a much-loved classic I’m going to stick to my opinion that while some things are done right, overall the film is a bit of a mess. I’m perfectly happy for you to disagree vehemently with me as I give ‘Suspiria’ a 5/10.

‘Berberian Sound Studio’ is an exercise in expanding your understanding of film. I loved it and am giving it an 8/10. 

99 red balloons go by……and scare the shit out of everyone (IT, 2017)

Let’s not clown around, ‘IT’ is not about Pennywise- it’s about fear itself.

Stephen King’s IT is a book very dear to my heart; it is long, detailed, absurd, at times tedious but ultimately terrifying. It has been one of my favourites ever since reading it at about 11 or 12 years old and has spawned multiple re-reads.
That is the great thing about Stephen king books is that they are so full of substance and content that you can never remember all of it at once.  Many would argue that this is a weakness or poor writing but I look at it from a different perspective- I like it because when you re read his works you always come across something new you didn’t remember and reading become exciting again.

If I’m honest, I never watched the 90s miniseries until I was an adult and by that time could see all of its flaws in harsh daylight. Without the element of nostalgia to make it important, I just don’t like it. Upon hearing of a new IT movie being in the works, I had followed this movies production since it was first an idea/ rumour. The hype built and built to a point when on Thursday I was sitting down to watch movie I had been excited to see for over a year.

So, did IT (2017, directed by Andy Muschietti ) live up to the hype? I think so. It was well paced with never a dull moment, such a riveting experience from start to finish. IT had heart and guts, the script was a welcome release from the horror of watching children getting attacked again and again. The film managed to catch the comradery of The Losers Club, which is the heart and soul of the story and the scares and monsters were so fun to watch.

The movie different from the book in a lot of ways but that is part of its charm: that the director, writers and actors put their own personal spin on the characters, situations and scares. The change in eras from 50s or 80s was seamless to the point of me forgetting it was the adaption the film did.
I think that is why the movie did do well and elicited such a great response from audiences because this film didn’t just pick all the scariest parts from the book and mash them together haphazardly (Miniseries, I’m looking at you); instead it took the premise of the book and went from there.

I want to adopt him

To make a horror film about the characters’ greatest fears, you have to develop your characters first; then it becomes believable, then it becomes real. Take Eddie for example- the films dialogue and character development show Eddie as an anxious germaphobe who is taught (in a somewhat psychologically abusive way) by his mother to fear getting sick. If you stop and think about it you can understand then why a leper would be Eddie’s worst fear. It makes sense, we feel for the poor terrified boy whose upbringing and personality shape what ‘IT’ becomes. That is the terrifying nature of the monster. 

On a side note eddies character was one of my favourites and I loved the performance Jack Dylan Grazer did. Maybe I’m just partial to kids dropping f-bombs.

I find it poignant reading about the inclusion of the horribly uncanny woman of Stan’s worst nightmares. It had nothing to do with the book but I really liked her design and thought she was a great addition. Apparently, Andy Muschietti was scared of a similar painting as a kid and added her into the movie as personal touch; what it would become were he in Stan’s situation. I find that wonderful, that a director would take on the source material and really understand and relate to it. The movie was quite different to the book but I think that became one of it’s strengths.

You can read the article I read here:
http://horrorfreaknews.com/spoilers-artist-inspired-terrifying-manifestation/20206

On a lighter note, I thought I would write about what ‘IT’ could have possibly revealed itself as if it were targeting me when I was a child. I went with the most absurd, but also the one thing that gave me the worst nightmares. It’s a little ridiculous but children’s brains work in mysterious ways.

In 1999, I was 7 years old, also in 1999 Blink 182’s album ‘Enema of the State’ was released. The cover is pretty recognisable, it’s the sexy nurse snapping her glove.

Sexy nurse Pennywise is an image that isn't going to leave your head quickly

I’m sure she was supposed to be sexy but as a child I was just terrified of her. To my 7-year-old brain she was going to go full on American Mary on me. I had many, many nightmares of her and her scalpel; it didn’t help that I was weirdly afraid of surgery at that age. It also didn’t help that every teenage cousin in my family would have a big poster of her on their wall, which I would see whenever I was made to sleep over. I would stare at her absolutely petrified she was coming to amputate my limbs. That look in her eye was pure evil.

So that’s my thoughts on IT. The movie was so well made and acted that it is hard to find any flaws in it. I would have liked a little less CGI, but when you have a shapeshifting creature of doom it’s a little hard to convey that with only practical effects- so I’ll let it slide.

I’m giving IT (2017) a 9.5/ 10

The problem with being genre obsessed (Annabelle: Creation, 2017)

I don’t know how shit the toys must have been in the 40s for children to think porcelain dolls are fun to play with.

I’m too far down the rabbit hole for anything remotely Hollywood to give me the creeps so going in to a packed theatre when ‘Annabelle: Creation’ (2017, directed by David Sandberg) premiered I knew I wasn’t going in to jump out of my seat.
Sitting in the theatre I was surrounded by people covering their eyes and gasping at the numerous horror tropes, but what was that that feeling creeping up my neck if not fear? Was that…envy? 

Envy of the thrills the others were having.
Sometimes I wish I could swap brains with someone who doesn’t regularly watch horror or doesn’t have my exact compulsion to watch anything and everything macabre, just so I could experience being shocked and scared. 

The irony is that we who watch movies to be scared ultimately stop being scared the more we watch, this desensitization to what is scary can sometimes leave us unfulfilled. Hollywood big budget thrillers with jump scares is just not going to do the trick anymore. Whereas the average movie goer whose only experience of horror is these big screen premieres gets their fix.

So, the question is: is Annabelle: Creation scary? The answer is ‘yes’, it had a horror movie concept with decent pacing and slightly less predictable jump scares then usual. Judging by the screams and gasps of the crowd in the cinema- Annabelle: Creation was terrifying.

The next question is a little more personal: if it was scary, did it scare me? That answer is ‘no’, it did not make me jump, it did not creep me out, it did not have me on the edge of my seat and I am still not scared of dolls at all.
But is that the movies fault? I think it isn’t, I think the blame lies with me and my constant devouring of the horror genre just to satiate my morbid curiosity.

Just because a doll is ugly doesn't make it spooky

Now, let’s talk about the movie. Like the title suggests Annabelle: Creation is about how the infamous doll came to be possessed by an evil entity. A group of orphans are taken in by a couple whose house is also supposedly home to their dead daughter’s spirit via an ugly-ass doll, however shit gets real when the whole house becomes terrorised by “Annabelle.”

I would however, like to make my opinion clear: a horror movie which doesn’t scare does not mean it is automatically a bad movie. 

There are a range of things which can make a movie bad such as terrible cinematography, weak plot and underwhelming acting- none of which Annabelle: Creation had.

I found the acting of the cast to be very solid, especially seeing as half of them were children- they were believable and not over the top; what more can you ask for? The scenes of the farm house and surrounding fields were shot beautifully with warm hues and were effective in communicating the isolation if the characters.
The movie dealt out the typical horror tropes you would expect to see, along with pretty good pacing and effective use of mounting unease and surprise. I felt like these surprises were well used and not cheap or over the top. There was even a slightly self-deprecating, comical tone with a few faux jump scares which relieved the tension.

So, my options are: quit cold turkey, no more horror films and wait for big films like the ones in the Conjuring universe to be the most extreme horror films I see. Um, no, no that isn’t an option, this genre is already my life.
Or, I can keep chasing that elusive sense of fear and ferociously consume as many different movies as I can. Some will be shit, some will be predictable, some will be so ludicrous they will make me doubt if I should keep going.
Some, though, some will be magnificent, some will fill my stomach with dread, some will make me keep running my fingers through my hair which I do when I’m anxious, some will make me laugh gleefully at their extremes they will go to, some will make my mouth hang open or make me sit there for a long time afterwards no knowing how to feel.

Some films, may even scare me.

I give 'Annabelle: Creation' a 6.5/10

The body count was high, the casualties are heavy (In the Mouth of Madness, 1994)

As the fisherman’s wife said, “give me more tentacles”

Every now and then I get in a horror movie slump, where I go through my list of movies yet film after film is just…ehh.  However, I know I have to push through it because eventually I watch a film that makes my brain explode with happiness; a film so good I actually am motivated to write about it. What is this film with the ability to overpower my well-practiced procrastination skills? It is ‘In the Mouth of Madness’ (1994, directed by John Carpenter).

Insurance agent John Trent is hired by a publishing company to find the whereabouts of bestselling author Sutter Cane. Meanwhile those who have read his novels have become axe wielding maniacs. Trent along with editor, Styles travel to a small town; where things start to eerily resemble the plot of Sutter Cane's most recent novel and eventually descend into an epic Lovecraftian nightmare. That is all I’m going to say about the plot because once you get caught up in the various twists and turns its literally as exciting as reading a great fantasy novel.

This is how we did our eyeliner in the 90s

The first thing about this movie I will say is that it has been made with immense attention to detail and purposeful craftmanship. I'd expect no less from John Carpenter but it is still worth mentioning just how well ‘In the Mouth of Madness’ is filmed. All the various elements of production: writing, acting special effects, film techniques-each commendable in their own right-are brought together to create literally one of the best films I have ever seen.

The film also gets META AS FUCK which it honestly manages to pull off really well. I could sit there watching the protagonist sitting in a theatre watching the same movie I am and just totally buy it. ‘In the Mouth of Madness’ is a pleasure to watch with a beautiful warm colour palette that gets exploited in probably one of the best uses of colour in cinematography that I can think of (you will know the scene I mean when you see it.)

Sam Neill is an amazing actor and a main contender for leading actor of the horror genre (can you call that a scream king?) with equally impressive performances in Possession (1981) and Event Horizon (1997).Neill is such an expressive actor! He is perfect for “am I going insane?” roles with his ability to use his entire body to act, not to mention his amazing facial expressions.

Watching his performance in this film, I can honestly see nobody else in the part. He was also charming as hell as the chain smoking John Trent. Well, actually the character is a smug fucking asshole; but Sam Neill pulls it off so well that he is a charming, smug fucking asshole.

Did I say tentacles enough?

The practical effects in this are great; there are some awesome animatronics/ people it suits used to create some awesome and epic Lovecraftian monsters. Every movie can be made better with the addition of tentacles and there is some awesome tentacle action going on in the epic last quarter or so of the movie. Literally the only thing that could have made it better would have been MORE TENTACLES. Also, there is a creepy as hell scene which rivals The Exorcist's backwards down the stairs crawl.

I would highly recommend this little movie from maybe not the most noteworthy years of John Carpenter’s filmography. I’m going to go ahead and say it is now in my list of favourite movies ever. I give it 10/10

Also reading this in the credits made me horror nerd-out