Krampus (2015) Review

Krampus is this year's biggest Christmas themed horror movie. It follows the story of a family who are burdened by the company of their relatives for Christmas, and then further burdened by the company of Krampus, who is described as Santa's shadow. The director Michael Dougherty made Trick 'r Treat in 2008 (which was a great film) and following the financial success of Krampus, Trick 'r Treat 2 has been given the green light. The problem is that that's probably the best thing about this film. The entire story seemed forced and rushed from beginning to end. 

It starts out with the feeling of a festive comedy film and stays that way for while, but gets dark very suddenly. Horror movies generally have jokes and comic moments, and that's fine, but they were all crammed in at the start here, and then it became all action. A transition would have been better, or blend of both horror and comedy throughout. It seemed to get confused in between. The majority of the cast have made careers in comedy so it was a bit unusual watching them all play serious roles for the second half of the film. I didn't need to see David Koechner play the same character he plays in everything he's in, it felt like he was just there to fill that Christmas/comedy stereotypical uncle role. The rest of the cast were okay, but again, the film probably could have benefited from a more serious cast or a better dispersal of jokes. That said, the funny bits were funny.

It's difficult to not compare this with Trick 'r Treat because they're both themed and in the same vein. What stands out most about Trick 'r Treat is that it's fun and really captures that Halloween aesthetic. Krampus doesn't really capture the Christmas aesthetic at all (and so many other films do) so it won't stand out as a Christmas film, whereas Trick 'r Treat most definitely stands out as a Halloween film. Another problem is that it's not that fun. It tries to be but it's not. It turns into a survivor film in the final third, and on top of it being confused between horror and comedy, it becomes a little bit of a thriller too. The story trips over itself on too many occasions for it to be an engaging film.

This film has a monster, and in that monster they have an rare opportunity to create an iconic Christmas symbol, like the Mogwai from Gremlins. Gremlins was so successful for many reasons, but one of the big reasons was that it had a mascot. Krampus really didn't capitalize on this, and missed a huge opportunity to create a modern horror classic. You don't get a good view of the monster for much of the film, but when you do it looks awful. The story is derived from old Austro-Bavarian folklore, and there are many drawings and depictions of the monster available. We know that Michael Dougherty can execute this; look at Sam from Trick 'r Treat. I really can't understand why he hasn't attempted something similar here.

Overall, Dougherty had the right intentions but everything was executed poorly. It's a watchable and somewhat enjoyable film but fails to break any new ground.

3/7

Dismembering Christmas (2015) Review

Two years I watched a film called Don't go to the Reunion made by a company called Slasher Studios. It was a Kickstarter project so I watched it with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it for what it was. Today I watched their second feature length film, Dismembering Christmas, with that same pinch of salt, but it turns out I didn't need it. The overall production has massively improved, and while the previous film was good for an amateur film, this one feels so much bigger and better. It doesn't feel amateur at all, it's actually hard to believe it was a Kickstarter funder project with a low budget.

The characters are interesting and the kills are extremely creative and fun. When those two things are applied to a standard slasher formula, it's a recipe for a good film. Mrs. Wallace reminds me of Annie Wilkes, she has that same eery presence about her. The bunch of friends in the house have good relations and we understand their connections without the dialogue being aimed too obviously at the audience. The story was well paced and the scenes were cohesive. 

In terms of direction and cinematography, I was blown away. Some of the shots were really impressive, particularly where the camera follows characters around the house. The kills are memorable thanks to strong imagery that is created, and of course, the whole film feels so Christmassy. They really nailed that aspect, which was important because many seasonal films can forget to include the all important seasonal presence. I'm certainly going to watch it again before Christmas. 

My only complaint is that it's quite short at 66 minutes. I understand there were limits due to the small budget, but an extra scene developing the character of Mrs. Wallace would have pushed Dismembering Christmas that extra step further. But on the overall, I'm massively impressed and happy with the finished product. I said that I couldn't wait to see what they did after their first film and they absolutely knocked it out of the park, so I'll repeat myself; I can't wait to see what they do next. A Halloween themed film next maybe?

5/7

Sinister 2 (2015) Review

Sinister 2 tells the story of a mother and her two sons running from the kids' father who is looking for custody of them. They live in a rural American farm house where they hope not to be found. We quickly learn that the house is possessed by Bughuul and one of the sons is being led to the basement by a ghost every night and shown old film reels of families being killed. The viewer is to understand that he is to kill his family next as the chain continues.

The premise of the film is good and interesting enough to hold the audience's attention for 97 minutes, but a list of things would have improved the quality of this film immensely. It would have been better as a standalone film, as it's not all that relevant to the first Sinister film. It would have been better without all of the paranormal parts, but that's probably just my opinion. And of course it's a product of Blumhouse, so jump scares dampened the otherwise sinister mood throughout (pun intended).

The cast performed well, all of the characters are interesting and engaging. The mother, played by Shannyn Sossaman gives a particularly strong performance. The director did his job extremely well, there are numerous wonderful visuals, particularly in the super 8 films shown to the kid and the part in the corn field (spoiler). He's a young director and managed to show off his skills well, but the film is not without its problems The story is okay but leaves the audience wanting more. The overall production is quite a let down, considering that the effort of all other parties is there.

I think it would be fair to say that there are a lot of strong points. The opening scene is good, the ending is good. But there are a lot of weak points too. When it needs to, it doesn't pack enough weight behind its punch, it just gives you a jump scare instead.

Blumhouse films always have the potential to be great. They have plenty of chances to take a risk, but time after time they play it safe. Unfriended was a big risk by Blumhouse and it paid off, I hope they can continue from that. But Sinister 2 is another safe horror film that could have been something more. It will make its money and a third instalment will probably be announced, but no new ground will be broken.

3/7

Poltergeist (2015) Review

The Poltergeist remake is the latest addition to a quickly expanding group of poor and unimaginative horror remakes. It's hard to look at any remake as a standalone film without making comparisons to the original. It would have been more exciting to see a sequel years on from the original, like The Town that Dreaded Sundown (2014) and Scream 4 (2010). Maybe we could have seen Carol Ann grown up with kids of her own and seeing the story develop in that way. But no, this 2015 remake regurgitates the exact same story from the first but in a contemporary setting. 

Modern aspects add nothing to the film. Mobile phones, drones, and GPS systems are used and the only way they actually contribute to the story is that we get to see inside the other world as a camera is flown in on a drone. Do we really need to see what it looks like where the child goes? It just looked like a CGI zombie movie. Some things are better left to the imagination. We don't see inside in the original because we don't need to. 

The original 1982 Poltergeist was written and produced by Steven Spielberg, and we can see that evidently in the qualities of the film. He describes E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) as a suburban dream while Poltergeist (1982) was a suburban nightmare. We see a Reagan-era family growing up in American suburbs and it was probably easy to relate to that in 1982. The 2015 film fails to possess these same qualities as we see the struggling family move into a really big house. All of the character are difficult to engage with from the beginning. 

On the topic of qualities, there is some pretty poor CGI in the original, but it adds a sense of charm to it and makes it feel like an 80's classic. This obviously cannot be reproduced in the remake, but the CGI in place was just boring and annoying. This is going to be a problem with the new Ghostbusters film if it ever happens. On top of all this, jokes are recycled from the original film, and that might generate a laugh or two, but it still offers nothing new. It relies heavily on jump scares to make the film seem scary, but it only made it feel like a Blumhouse film. 

The evidence of lazy writing and general film making is so clear throughout this film. The original can't be surpassed so why bother making a remake? It's a lazy method of generating money for movie studios. Original films like It Follows and Unfriended have been released this year and that's really exciting to see, but the Poltergeist remake is a setback for the horror genre. If anything good can come from it, remakes might stop getting made. Revisit the original at home instead of wasting your money on this film.

Oh, and a blue flatscreen has nothing on a static television set, but I guess that epitomizes this remake.

1/7 

Unfriended (2015) Review

"Why don't they just turn off their computers?" is the question that never even crossed my mind while watching Unfriended, despite a lot of people saying it after watching the trailer. It was a question that was always going to be asked with a film like this but it was addressed without much notice quite early on. The premise of the film is that a group of friends are being messaged by a dead girl they went to school with and six of them ultimately get trapped in a chat room with her. The entire film takes place on a computer screen, there are no external shots at all.

I really enjoyed this aspect because it is not something I have seen before and so it had a lot of novelty on the big screen. When I see a computer screen I feel like I am in control, and it drove me nuts not being able to flick between the windows, but in the best way possible. I felt like I was missing something in the Skype window because it was minimised and needed to remind myself that I was not in control of what window was open.

The group of six friends had really good chemistry despite not being in the same room together. There was a true closeness between the group, like in groups in Scream and Friday the 13th, and it was intriguing to see this achieved in such a peculiar environment. You can see some relationships beginning to develop between characters and you begin to forget that they're all sitting in front of computer screens.

Without giving too much away, the film has a few too many silly bits and there were more moments where the packed cinema laughed than there were silent and suspenseful moments. I think that watching this movie on a laptop would have been a completely different experience, and I might have been more inclined to turn it off. But it was an unusual and refreshing experience seeing it in the cinema.

Unfriended deserved credit for its originality. It's a new generation being applied to the horror genre, but the interest surrounding it is purely novel. The film has felt doomed in my mind since I first heard about it. It could either be terrible or be good and create loads of terrible sequels or spinoffs. I wouldn't want to watch another film like this because there are not enough variables to make a similar film interesting, and while it wasn't terrible, I can only hope that it can be left now as a standalone film.

4/7

It Follows (2014) Review

I saw It Follows in the cinema twice in the space of a week. The first time, I hadn't seen the trailer before watching it and I was expecting a typical modern horror film. After the very first scene I knew that this film was not going to be what I had expected.

If you haven't seen the film, the premise is that a girl obtains a curse after having sex and she is constantly being followed by "It". There is only one of it, but it can look like anyone or anything. It does whatever it has to do to get close to you, we are told.

The soundtrack for this film is a nostalgic synthesised soundtrack that sounds like a homage to 80's slasher movies and sets the overall theme of the film. It ranges from peaceful melodies to genuinely frightening and distressing at times.

The director of this film, David Robert Mitchell, uses really unusual camera techniques throughout the film. There are several 360 shots like in the opening scene where the camera rotates slowly, along with a lot of panning and zooming in most scenes. He's a relatively new director with only one previous feature film, and it's exciting to see confident techniques used by someone like that. I am already looking forward to see what he does next.

Two things stood out to me particularly about It Follows. It has a sense of timelessness and there is a noticeable absence of parents throughout the film. In the first couple of minutes, I had come to the conclusion that the film was set in the 70's or 80's due to the box television sets, but after a girl uses a weird shell type touch screen phone, it became clear that this film was intentionally not set in any time period. We see the protagonist's mother sit at the table in the background facing away from the camera and otherwise we don't see her at all. The only characters we see that speak are all teenagers, making them seem isolated and helpless to the problem that they face.

I have read some reviews that have criticised the film for lacking originality and paying too much homage to older films. I disagree. This film breaks the rules of its predecessors. The final girl is not a virgin and her problems stem from that very fact. It has broken barriers, it is likely to be copied and gain a cult following.

All of these features make for a really enjoyable film, and on top of it all, the plot of the film is actually scary. While not exactly a relatable story, it feels like it doesn't matter because the characters are. My only criticism is that the momentum gets a bit lost leading up to the climax and the energy that is built in the first hour of the film should have been carried better up to the end. But overall it is incredibly enjoyable and deserves the praise it has so far gotten. I have rarely gotten to the end of a film and felt the need for a second viewing, particularly in the cinema.

6/7