Change Your Image
davidstarr_davidstarr
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Storage 24 (2012)
Modest little sci-fi horror shows promise
Okay, so we have a Brit flick in the 'alien sci-fi' sub genre, a huge departure from the usual independent fare we get to see from the little Island, and economically just about scraping the barrel of low budget independent at the £1.5m budget that is widely attributed to the film, primarily by (he described it as 1/10 of the budget of Attack the Block @ $13m) writer/producer Noel Clarke.
In no uncertain terms it draws heavily upon the genre's benchmarks of creativity (Alien, Mimic, Independence Day - all landmark films for their own reasons) and drops them into the most claustrophobic, visually uninteresting, and echoing environment they could come up with. Whilst a storage facility is not the most entertaining of settings in which to base any movie, let alone an alien led sci-fi movie, the filmmakers didn't allow themselves to be hamstrung by such a location, instead drawing on set-pieces from their favourite movies - crawling through the vent shafts (Alien), the pursuits down corridors (er...Alien), and the final confrontation between the lead character and the creature (yep you guessed it.....Alien). What is clear is that since 1979, no matter how 'inventive' the filmmaker, or imaginative the screenwriter, creatives the world over have struggled to throw off the shackles of a film that will go down in history as the greatest sci-fi horror of all time. No ! Not Storage 24 funnily enough.
And to that end all Storage 24 can do is offer up a little bit of familiarity in a script that has too little in its legs to carry it over the feature threshold, dialogue that gets strained and repetitive very early on, and a tired, almost contrived presentation of character from the majority of actors that you can't help but wonder if it was all actually worth the effort. I like Noel Clarke as an actor - he's not up there in Johnny Depp territory but he's affable and presentable and has a bit of an idea.
Sadly same can't be said for his colleagues in this, particularly Ms Campbell-Hughes whose 'sucked p**s off a nettle' expression all the way through got very tiresome. Haddock provided some eye candy relief but frankly she'd be much better if given a bigger, or more daring role that stretched her emotional range. But it was the appearance, albeit brief, of the reliable Ned Dennehy, that brought some comic relief and acting gravitas to what would otherwise have been a very bland affair in the acting stakes.
The main objection for me in this film was that it procrastinated over whether to go the whole hog, balls to the wall horror, or to stay firmly in the "scare 'em, chase 'em, make 'em chuckle" parody of what horror is supposed to all be about. It decided on neither. The moments of levity were all generated by character and not situation which is what you expect in parody. and apart from the odd gross out moment of gore there was just not enough scare, violence, blood, or suspense to justify this as a horror film. There are pre-requisites to hit mainstream with any horror (big scares, blood, gore, nudity, sex, and containment). For decades these general observations coupled with great scripts and masterful acting, have decided the difference between the good and the bad. But you can't have a few. It's either all or nothing. Make the deaths more gruesome, make the chase truly reflective of the urgency without breaking off into repetitive dialogue that draws away from the sweaty palmed sense of encroaching doom, if you're going to have secret lovers in a lock up (regardless of how likely it would be) lets have some flesh on show, get fumbling with the stickies until you really cant go any further without bumping uglies. And as for Laura Haddock in the toilet - a great opportunity to tease the audience with a little more 'knicker' shots or partial flesh exposure. But above all - time the damned reveal of the creature. Horror exists on the slow reveal of the antagonist in stages, bit by creepy bit - not all in one go. If you are to take ANYTHING from the classic 'Alien' take that. Horror movies that last are those which understand the importance of their component parts.
So in summary, Storage 24 is an entertaining little flick that aspired to be greater than the level of its ultimate achievement. Competently shot, with moments of real suspense but overall a bit of a damp squib. The creature design is nice, not in the Woodruff Jr ballpark but pretty damned good nonetheless. It's just a shame it wasn't utilised properly according to the genre's requirements.
The Hike (2011)
A low rent 'horror' journey that just isn't horrific or scary at all
When a young enthusiastic Jewish-American began this journey into torture porn territory (thank you Eli Roth you schmuck) which is something none of us should be proud of, it signalled a movement of derivation and copycat movies the likes of which haven't been seen since those that followed in the wake of the heady and exciting days of Jason, Michael, and Leatherface in the late 70's / early 80's.
The number of movies that have regurgitated the 'youngsters in peril' storyline have been overwhelmed, if not in number, certainly in the ferocity of their horror, by those now taking young (and old) characters without discrimination and putting them through any number of horrendously painful, vomit-inducing, and gut-churning scenarios to prolong and enhance the pain of death.
With films like Frontieres and Martyrs, the French have begun a renewed journey into the bizarre and gratuitous, last seen in 70's, though oddly the narratives have way more depth than those coming from America and Britain. The Brit attempts at this subversive sub-genre are more lame than a three-legged pony with a limp. The Hike opens with positive intent. It's just that the deaths are glossed over, and merely suggested at. That isn't torture porn and to be honest it's pretty poor for a slasher/psycho type horror too. For one commentator to liken this even remotely to the set up (group of girls) of The Descent is ambitious to say the least. In order to have that sort of impact there needed to be something thoroughly dynamic in the opening 5 minutes.
Director Bryant(Rupert not David) missed a golden opportunity there, and sadly everything goes downhill very rapidly from that point on. The only thing that brought even the remotest interest for me was the walk through the forest to the waterfall which was very reminiscent of Neil Marshall's caving flick. The Hike at that point 'felt' quality. But it didn't last long. The camp scene and onwards to the mid-point at around 40 minutes was as if Bryant studied The Descent frame by frame and basically built his opening 20 minutes around Neil's set up (but without the money to have a log cabin - hell even one of the character's asks if a cabin's where they are sleeping).
The cast (girls) were very pretty, but eye-candy trades off ho-hum as actors. There wasn't one stand out - albeit Stephanie Siadatan was quite the little hottie in her tight hipsters and bikini top. Nedeljakova, probably the biggest name on show, turns in a very ordinary performance. The rest were unrecognisable names that didn't take the opportunity to shine. Shauna MacDonald was easily the best on show brief as her appearance was. But the most annoying thing for me was Pythian - I didn't believe for one minute she was ex-British Army who had served in Afghanistan. Dialogue and some terminologies were forced, inaccurate in a lot of cases. I loved the way she just stared at the map and compass at the start of the trek - no bearings taken, no waypoints marked - a military map would be marked as a matter of process on exercise - once you've done that once it's like muscle memory. Why do filmmakers make stuff with military elements and NOT get technical advice? Saving a buck or two I expect but costing them in authenticity. By far Pythian's 'best' moments were when she was the vulnerable victim, busted, broken, and running scared.
I know that Pythian is some big deal in martial arts but jeez the girl can't seem to act - very one note, monotone delivery. In fight sequences okay, fair enough; combat skills for martial arts movies I can understand. But in this in particular she just didn't cut regular squaddie, Special Forces, AI, or anything remotely connected to military (or police for that matter either). Every film she's in, she's a tough cookie who punches and kicks her way clear of trouble. Sadly it seems fighting skills are ALL she is employed for. If she wants to develop as an actress she needs to take on more roles that allow her acting talents (assuming she has some beyond looking moody) to do the impressing for her.
The guys too were incredibly one note and the story made so obvious even a blind man with a deaf mute dog could've seen what was coming ! The red herring Russian stank so badly it was more kipper ! It made the narrative unbearable - no tension, no terror. Even the gratuitous violence, nudity, and gore failed to appear. I think Bryant bottled it. That's lazy and dismally poor filmmaking. Either set out your stall and deliver or just don't make out you can do what you clearly can't. Shame really because the setting was beautiful and the cinematography was well composed. The DP comes out of this with some credit at least.
How to sum The Hike up? Dismal and lazy that neither delivered on its torture porn potential nor delivered the alternative killer / slasher in the woods – a firework with a lit fuse that 'phuts and fizzles' - extinguishes before the main event. The Descent and Eden Lake plagiarisms are unforgivable - talk about ripping from much better sources. The Hike was predictable, laboured, poorly conceived, poorly cast, and failed to deliver on expectation. Horror of all genres is the one where a known audience exists and where theatrical, DVD, and VOD success can almost be guaranteed.......as long as a filmmaker remembers what audiences want and delivers upon it........even if that delivery comes from left field. The Hike wasn't even in the stadium, and will undoubtedly be consigned to the 'missed by a quarter mile' bin at Blockbusters.
U.F.O. (2012)
Overly ambitious and sadly very wide of the mark !
The overview of British independent cinema continues with UFO, which if the budget is to be believed, kind of falls outside what I would normally consider to be independent in the manner of all things being reviewed. At $2.5m (£1.75m) this is a feature that, financially at least, had all the backing it needed to be at least in the same ballpark of achievement, albeit a different genre, as the UK indie classic "Dog Soldiers".
Sadly money alone is never enough, and from the outset it was clear that too much of that $2.5m found its way into the pockets of cast and above-the-line crew. There just wasn't enough of that substantial budget on the screen in qualitative terms. Sure there were CGI moments that, whilst not in the same league as Avatar, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, or even Buck Rogers, tried hard to be credible.
But what cannot be overcome in an independent film at any budget level is a woeful script that fails to ignite its actors, instead merely squelching onto the screen damp squibs of woeful acting on the part of the characterless and unimaginative cast. From early doors, in fact the first 30 minutes, we were introduced to a one dimensional set of characters without a redeeming or interesting quality amongst them, rambling on about everything and nothing in an attempt to illicit some degree of connection from the audience. All they served to do however is aggravate and annoy to the point one longs for the appearance of the USS Enterprise to commit 'hari kiri' with a photon torpedoe attack as the only way to deal with a human race that's just not worth saving.
There was but one decent performance amongst this sad lot - Maya Grant (Dana) - the most surprising thing being her complete lack of experience and this being, apparently, her feature debut. She held it together, for the entire movie, from being just a total mess. Brosnan was okay I guess, Bree very wooden, Philips just plain unengaging like so many of the films he's been in. He really should give up in front of the screen. Van Damme was wasted but seems to be whoring himself out lately. Glover too is better than this film. But to me the biggest disappointment was Pertwee - not so much in his acting because I really rate him as an actor - but in how little screen time he got. Not his fault, but I wish he would be more discerning about the projects he chooses and do something that fits the level of amazing talent he has.
What basically filled the void of 90 minutes whilst watching this movie was a lot of talking heads, exposition, mesmerized gazing into the distance, and lots of 'we've got to get out of here's'. What little action there was came too infrequently and was so detached from what little plot there was that it seemed episodic and completely out of sync. Neither did the narrative seem to know what it wanted to be - thrilling action-led sci-fi or sci-fi comedy. Tonally it was all over the show and delivered neither convincingly. Clearly whatever the point of the story was it was completely lost in translation or never even made the screenwriters page TO be translated in the first place. More development in the pre-production stage and script editing was obviously needed.
It's not a thing I would ordinarily say but I feel bad for the investors in this instance, because I just can't see how in a month of any given Sundays this movie will get close to repaying the dollar value put into it. I expected so much more than the filmmakers delivered if for no other reason than the Brits have been spoilt in years gone by, by talented filmmakers delivering so much better on the same level of money or less. Part of me thinks that Dominic Burns, the writer/director of Alien Uprising (or is it UFO here - I've heard both titles used) to use a frequently applied analogy was 'writing cheques his body couldn't cash' - or should I say 'his talent' couldn't. He's bitten off a genre that needed imagination and 'outside the box' thinking on the money available, but delivered instead a wishy-washy, hum-drum, ho-hum, holy mother of Christ do I know what I am movie that merely serves to annoy patrons like me who have parted with their oh-so-hard-earned green and been treated to a slap across the filmic chops ! Oh well, onwards I guess - hopefully to a Brit indie flick with more to say and more to enthral with.
Hard Shoulder (2012)
Ambitious, quirky, and confusing, But kinda smart too !
"Dead End" comes across from the blurb at least like a modern domestic drama that descends into a sort of "Captivity" or "Devil's Rejects" and I suppose anyone into that sort of extreme violence and depravity will be left more than a little disappointed by "Dead End". Cos, for all the presuppositions that a viewer might make about this film before watching, it isn't like either of the aforementioned 'blood-soaked' violence heavy films. It is a lot smarter than that in my opinion. There's substantially more to this film than meets the eye for anyone smart enough to actually dig a bit deeper beyond the obvious on screen action in my view. It subtly deconstructs the main character, Carl (played by Wil Johnson) and seems to lay bare his soul - pretty much presenting him as a total ass who has f****d up the most important thing in his life, his family, by being a bit of a dog, a pervert, and a money hungry son*****ch.
* SPOILERS * The disenchanted family situation is something I can relate to - arguing with my wife, annoyed by the constant whining of my kids, thinking that the grass is a greener affair on the other side of the fence (I mean which guy hasn't right?), getting riled at absolutely f**k all most of the time. It's a stress thing I guess. The multi-racial tensions of seemingly two single parents uniting adds a further dynamic but the backstory to that isn't really important. It's all about the present and the lack of unity (caused by his needs coming before anyone else's). The diner on the other hand is something pretty ingenious - it doesn't really exist - well, except in Carl's head I guess (they pass a diner on the journey) and neither do any of the characters in the diner. I got the impression they were representing Carl - all the facets of him that make up the scheming b*****d that he is. Maybe as a way of denying responsibility for splitting his family (and in reality killing them in the accident) he tries to offload the guilt to his 'other personalities' which are given 'life' in the film following his run in with the carnival people on the road - essentially the last people he came into contact with before falling asleep at the wheel. That's a clever set up. Not seen that before.
I noticed little clues in the film all along when I bought the DVD and went through it - motifs - dog statues in the home (although we never hear "Dog" mentioned by name do we?), the necklace worn by all the girls in his f**k fantasy (and the old hag in the diner), the long haired dude (Diggs I think) basically put down all the time by Jamie Foreman's character (a bit like Carl and his overbearing wife). The creepy boy, Herschel, was a bit like the guy played by Elija Wood in Sin City, but here a pervert trying not to be a pervert. I thought that was a reflection of Carl looking in on his step-daughter but trying his best not to peek. The slutty girl, Mamon, was clearly a representation of temptation with all her bits hanging out. The kissing of the step-daughter was clearly a bloke fantasy in Carl's head - a memory from home hearing the girl on the phone to her girlfriend.
I've seen reviewers mention the hell scene at the end and proclaim "what the f**k !" It isn't that hard to understand is it ? It seems to represent, if you haven't worked it out already by that time, the purgatory that Carl is in. The melding girls had me a bit confused but they must be both of Carl's girlfriends or something, though I did see the step-daughter's face in there as well. Did he get to sleep with her too I wonder ? Is that the reason for his guilt ? Only the filmmakers know that I presume.
There were loads more references to pick up on. A lot of thought clearly went into writing this. I might be completely wrong of course, but that's how it came across to me - an intelligently written, well made film more like a journey into David Lynch or Lars von Trier territory than into the ordinary blood soaked crass extreme violence of Rob Zombie, Marcus Nispel or other lame, told before stories. And it was great to see Jamie Foreman doing something different - not the boring gangster trite that Brit independent film tends to produce all the time. And at least it isn't another zombie movie either - though "Un-dead End" could be a bloody outing and has a good ring to it. I take my hat off to the filmmakers for trying to do something different and on most counts (apart from the odd low rent cgi moment) succeeding at it. But given the budget that can be excused.
So if you have the patience to switch on, watch, listen, and piece it together "Dead End" is an entertaining effort of first time cinema from this writer/director - doing something so 'odd' was a pretty ballsy move. And it does look rich and saturated on film. Love a good film - way better looking than some digital stuff that gets made these days. My advice, go in knowing what not to expect, be prepared to give it a go, find all the clues, and look at it much deeper than merely the gloss of what you can SEE on screen. The meaning lies deeper, and it's an analogical and metaphorical journey into darkness not a literal one I think. If you understand that, and avoid having a beer whilst watching (it'll only serve to muddy your understanding further) you'll get where these filmmakers were coming from in my humble opinion.
Victims (2011)
A cool contribution to UK independent movie making !
I've been keeping an eye on developments in the UK and there's been a definite shift in independent film of late as a handful of writer/directors try to usher in a new perspective of what Brit flick actually stands for. The creative force behind Abducted: Kidnapped and Brutalised (David Bryant), the US release title, has delivered a taught, claustrophobic 'why-dunnit' with minimal cast, minimal locations, and a dialogue heavy script that is unsettling, threatening, and malevolently violent beneath the obvious captivity of the protagonist of the story. Clearly shot digitally it makes use of available lighting and minimal set requirements, very low budget certainly, but not without a flair and passion that many filmmakers with more of everything: more money, more equipment resources, bigger crews, and more production backing are sadly devoid of. Just goes to show what can be done with a solid script and a heap of natural talent.
*SPOILERS* Chris McMahon is kidnapped on his wedding day by a gang of masked assailants, bound, gagged, beaten, and dumped into the back of a transit van before being driven away to an isolated location prior to what seems like an execution. On the journey to the place of his ultimate demise he is interrogated by two of the gang members who lay out the reasons for the abduction. Despite constant proclamation of his innocence (relating to a rape he apparently committed when he was 11 on a girl of 4)the gang members seem reluctant to believe anything but a full and frank confession fro m the man they think him to be, a bloke called Neil. How this story plays out, with beat downs, blindfolds, gags,, and the threat of death, is carefully choreographed with a final confrontation involving Chris' new wife , the kidnappers, and him - the level of expectation rises exponentially to a thrilling climax.
Shot, as I said, digitally, what makes this thriller a little unusual apart from all the stuff mentioned, is the fact it is broken down into only 3 x single and very long takes, almost documentary style, as if the resultant tape is some kind of rudimentary confession evidence. It's a clever set up and the execution is very good. It isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination but neither would the filmmakers claim it to be. It is supposed to be rough and ready - it's being made by the kidnappers (1st PPOV throughout suggest another kidnapper recording the action) after all. That said however it is a very accomplished piece of storytelling and deserves a viewing. It is released in US as Abducted: Kidnapped and Abused, though I have to say the original Brit title "Victims" was much better and alluded to a wider impact - many victims (as the story finally reveals)- although I have heard that other titles are being considered including "79 Minutes" which I absolutely hate as an idea. It means nothing. There are great performances across the board from the small cast, none of whom are well known faces from cinema or TV as far as I can gather. But they all deliver on point and do both themselves and the film huge justice.
So, if you're tired of the usual gangster, hooligan, zombie fare of British independent cinema and want to watch something that is unsettling rather than horrific, and is right out of left field, try Abducted: Kidnapped and Brutalised. The cover art is misleading, because it isn't brutal (not physically that is) in a Hostel or Saw kind of way that audiences seem to expect these days. And it certainly isn't a "Captivity" either - but then on the sort of low budget this film was made on it was never trying to be a reflection or homage to any of those anyways.