What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

And I followed it up with an evening screening:

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)

Yet another to be filed under "how have I not seen this until now"? The simplest answer being 1989 me was aware of it by name and poster alone, and probably didn't feel it was my cup of tea.

I remember him being a pretty big name at this time, but with the little I saw of him I never really "got" him back then. At the time it felt to me as though he was in everything. Kids at school - and boys particularly - seemed to love him in films like Roxanne or Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Me? At the time I thought the little I'd seen of him was pretty silly and found his overexposure a turn-off, which is part of the reason I happily skipped over the film.

With this in mind, it was a wonderful surprise to find myself belly laughing at some of his scenes. Some of the characters he played here were just hilarious. There's an underlying cruelty to some of the humour (I felt guilty for laughing at the "Ruprecht" scenes because he appeared to be posing as someone with severe learning difficulties), but Martin has the charisma to soften the blow.

Michael Caine is also an actor whose body of work is impressive, but who - to me - seemed pretty much the same in everything (thanks in no small part to his trademark distinctive speaking voice). That said, I don't recall watching one of his performances that wasn't in some way enjoyable. It's telling that just this week I was disappointed to find that he didn't return for the second Miss Congeniality film as I'd enjoyed him in the first.

More than even Steve Martin, this film has allowed me to appreciate Michael Caine more than ever before. What really struck me - and this is mostly thanks to the dynamic with Steve Martin who is frequently very OTT and animated - was his stillness. He simply stood there taking it all - twinkle in the eye and knowing look on his face - and completely commanded the screen. It was great fun to see him playing other some roles within the role, and to hear that he's rather good at accents which here included German and Australian. And of course he was born to play a roguish cad with echoes of David Niven, Leslie Phillips or Terry Thomas.

It was good to see Anton Rodgers in another film role. While I've seen him in some cameos and small roles in older British films, he's best known to me as William Fields. This year has given me the chance to see him do some different stuff: the singing and dancing in Scrooge was a revelation to me since there was a natural fluidity to his physicality that was light years away from the sitcom hubby I know; as was the lascivious roué in Upstairs Downstairs. His part in this film as the corrupt French police inspector showed yet another side to him, and he was perfect for this bigger supporting role. I was struck by a couple of nods (perhaps unintentional) to other vehicles of his: firstly, the con artist being known as The Jackal could be viewed as alluding to The Day Of The Jackal - the film version of which featured Anton. Secondly, and most exciting, a lengthy surveillance scene featuring Rodgers early-ish in the film was done to a quirky, slightly Gallic instrumental rendition of Pick Yourself Up which is best known to me as the theme to Anton's hit sitcoms Fresh Fields and its successor French Fields (where it was given a more Gallic style). This film was shot some time Fresh Fields ended (and around a year before French Fields began), and I couldn't help wondering if this was a deliberate little Easter egg.

The rest of the casting remained consistently good. There are lots of familiar faces of the well-known and lesser-known varieties to keep the interest.

The film's lighthearted twist was satisfying enough. I must confess I didn't see it coming until shortly before the reveal.​

 

[Crimson]

DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS is one of my favorite comedies; I mentally pair it with RUTHLESS PEOPLE and A FISH CALLED WANDA as the trio of 80s comedies about terrible people that are darkly funny but also surprisingly sweet. (I love all three.) In general I like all of Steve Martin's 80s work although since then, not so much. SCOUNDRELS is also an incredibly rare instance of a remake being better than the original. BEDTIME STORY, with Brando, David Niven and Shirley Jones is just so-so and has none of the hilarity and heart of SCOUNDRELS.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Revengers' Comedies (1998)
a.k.a. Sweet Revenge

I hadn't heard of this and ahead of watching I scanned enough to know only that it was a Strangers On A Train type plot and included Helena Bonham Carter, Sam Neill and Kristin Scott Thomas.

As the titles played, the news got better and better for me. Firstly, it transpired this was based on an Alan Ayckbourn play. Then there was the cast, which was a virtual smörgåsbord of familiar names and faces whose work I've enjoyed, some of whom I'd almost forgotten. I'd never have thought some of these would appear in the same project.

There's Anita Dobson, starting out all posh, like, and ending up screaming hysterically at her daughter and causing a scene by assaulting a man outside a pub. Angie would be proud. Her daughter is Charlotte "Marmalade Atkins" Coleman, who works as a housekeeper beneath reliable old Liz Smith, whose method for getting a greasy kipper stain off Sam Neill's trouser crotch involves so much elbow grease and friction he finds himself fighting a losing battle with his own biology. Devastatingly chiseled Rupert Graves is HBC's dopey-but-sensitive brother. Steve Coogan's here, the object of HBC's murderous intentions and there's a small role from Dicken Ashworth (whose final Brookside episodes I watched just last week) meaning this is a tale of two Alan Partridges. Sadly, the two don't appear in a scene together.

The main cast is great, too. HBC appears to have great fun playing the unpredictable and slightly fragile upper class type whose disguises range from a plain Jane secretary (complete with fake teeth) to a slutty variation of the same secretary. Sam Neill looks wonderfully out of his depth at times (as he's meant to be). KST does that ice queen thing she's so good at.

The plot is fun, and the tone nicely quirky in the most eccentrically British kind of way. Almost everyone, as it turns out, has an agenda, so the truth lies where you find it.

The Norman Conquests it isn't, but I'm still very glad to have stumbled upon this one.
​

I mentally pair it with RUTHLESS PEOPLE and A FISH CALLED WANDA as the trio of 80s comedies about terrible people that are darkly funny but also surprisingly sweet.

Oh, interesting. I'd probably never have made that connection between these three, but now you've said I can completely see it.

BEDTIME STORY, with Brando, David Niven and Shirley Jones is just so-so and has none of the hilarity and heart of SCOUNDRELS.

Thanks. This will save me seeking it out. Incidentally, I see that Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has itself been remade (gender-switched, naturally) as The Hustle. I've only seen the poster but I can't say it grabbed me.


I was intrigued to see that Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was initially written with Bowie and Jagger in mind. John Cleese was considered for Jamieson, while Eddie Murphy and Richard Dreyfuss were mooted for Benson (due to crossed wires, Dreyfuss ended up prepping a reading for the Michael Caine character instead). This kind of background minutiae always adds a bit of interest for me.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. I don't regret watching it but at the same time I want to forget about it as soon as possible.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Ladies In Lavender (2004)

Watched mainly on the basis that it includes both Miriam Margolyes and Judi Dench among its main cast. They do their Miriam Margolyes and Judi Dench things, along with Maggie Smith doing her Maggie Smith thing.

Daniel Brühl was great in this. He's kind of a fantasy character: a handsome young man who literally washes up onto shore to be taken in and cared for by two older women who find him in turn fascinating and attractive. His appeal as a naïf comes from his initial helplessness and his inability to speak English, something the women teach him.

Recapping this story now, it strikes me that there are numerous parallels with Misery - right down to the hosts' admiration of - and the talent they want to keep around them (he turns out to be a wunderkind when he picks up a violin) and their protectiveness becoming possessive. The big difference is that while Misery plays out as a nightmarish horror, Ladies... is viewed through the prism of innocent romance and lost dreams (the poster's endorsement quotes from reviews speak volumes). Essentially, this film could be like seeing the scenario through the eyes of Annie Wilkes rather than Paul Sheldon. When they help him recover or ravel to town to buy him Harris Tweed suits, there's a charming warmth. Even the more glaringly inappropriate moments where Judi's character attempts to stroke his hair as he sleeps or later recovers a lock of his hair to keep for herself seem somehow as heartbreaking as it is creepy. And now I've seen the Misery parallels, it's replaying as a very different film in my head. It's also interesting to consider existing double-standards, and the outrage and controversy today's audience might feel were genders reversed.

If anything further were needed, the film's main older man is David Warner whose name, I'm slightly ashamed to say I mainly associate with two of his horror roles: the ill-fated photographer in The Omen and Sidney's avuncular drama teacher in Scream 2. I found him intriguing in the latter role in particular, because it was a small role but he had such gravitas that every line he spoke felt important. Ladies... sees him playing a distrusting moustachioed doctor with just a hint of the old letch when it comes to the pretty young woman, and the investigative instinct of Jennings, his character from The Omen. Once again he's very enjoyable and it's reminded me I'd like to check out more of his work.

There are oodles of "oh, it's him from..." moments to anyone who's watched British dramas or sitcoms. Even Geoffrey "The Crowman" Bayldon is in there. At a couple of points I thought I saw Bill Owen, but turns out it was another character actor with similar features.

The Cornish location work is very attractive and, combined with the winning cast and gentle story make this ideal weekend matinée material, though mileage will vary on how satisfied one feels as the credits roll.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE CONJURING (2013)



A re-watch, and it wasn't as awesome as I remembered it, which explains why I didn't remember what I liked about it in the first place.
It's also very possible that I liked the sequel better.

It looks like a well-made greatest hits medley (Amityville, The Haunting, The Exorcist, Paranormal Activity) and if you don't have the time to watch all these films then I guess THE CONJURING does the trick.
Funnily enough, the part that makes me feel the most uncomfortable is the suffocating and disorientating effect of the flowery wallpaper in the Warren's house. It does precisely what the demonic-looking Annabelle doll fails to accomplish.

Inspired by this I watched a part of POLTERGEIST II which is unbelievably bad.
Scenario:
1. something strange happens
2. one the kids screams
3. parent to other parent "THE KIDS!" (as in: "Remember those little people who live in our house? I think we even named them")
Watch it for Craig T. Nelson's fabulous histrionics.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Others (2001)

Back when it first came out, I'm sure I knew of this film by name, poster and the fact that Nicole Kidman is in it. That's about as far as it went and I probably ruled it out as not my cup of tea without looking any more closely.

Turns out this is my cup of tea. I love how old-fashioned it feels and that goes beyond the period setting to the film's sensibilities. There's an emphasis on gothic atmosphere and the film is a visual feast in this regard. Light is the enemy in the story, and this serves the aesthetic, with long shadows and dim flickering light adding to the unsettling ambience.

It's a well-cast film. Kidman is The Name in the film, while the remaining cast is familiar but in general good, dependable actors rather than big-name staaaaahs. It's also a mostly British/Irish cast, featuring the likes of Chris Eccleston and Fionnula Flanagan. It was surprising to see Eric Sykes's name in the credits since he's currently testing my patience in his self-penned, self-titled, self-starring sitcom from the Seventies. Turns out he was perfectly fine in this role, age having given him a more wizened and interesting presence (old age can create interest and gravitas where there once was little-to-none). It blew my mind a little to realise that the gap between the end of his sitcom and this film is about the same as the gap from this film to today.

I'd wondered if this was a British film or a Hollywood one. Turns out it's neither. This is actually a Spanish-made piece.

This is the perfect film to watch blind without knowing anything about the premise or plot, and it's one of those rare discoveries that I could happily watch more than once.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

I agree it's a great film although I often find Nicole Kidman a bit challenging to watch. I don't know why but I always want to like her more than I do (if that makes sense).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The Others (2001)

Back when it first came out, I'm sure I knew of this film by name, poster and the fact that Nicole Kidman is in it. That's about as far as it went and I probably ruled it out as not my cup of tea without looking any more closely.

Turns out this is my cup of tea. I love how old-fashioned it feels and that goes beyond the period setting to the film's sensibilities. There's an emphasis on gothic atmosphere and the film is a visual feast in this regard. Light is the enemy in the story, and this serves the aesthetic, with long shadows and dim flickering light adding to the unsettling ambience.

It's a well-cast film. Kidman is The Name in the film, while the remaining cast are familiar but in general good, dependable actors rather than big-name staaaaahs. It's also a mostly British/Irish cast, featuring the likes of Chris Eccleston and Fionnula Flanagan. It was surprising to see Eric Sykes's name in the credits since he's currently testing my patience in his self-penned, self-titled, self-starring sitcom from the Seventies. Turns out he was perfectly fine in this role, age having given him a more wizened and interesting presence (old age can create interest and where there once was little-to-none. It blew my mind a little to realise that the gap between the end of his sitcom and this film is about the same as the gap from this film to today.

I'd wondered if this was a British film or a Hollywood one. Turns out it's neither. This is actually a Spanish-made piece.

This is the perfect film to watch blind without knowing anything about the premise or plot, and it's one of those rare discoveries that I could happily watch more than once.​

It's one of the three or four best haunted house films ever.

 

[Seaviewer]

Aquaman (2018)


Despite my comics reading childhood, Aquaman was a character who - other than some regular appearances in the JLA - mostly passed me by. He just never interested me in the way that many of his peers did. I really wasn't sure I wanted to watch a two and a half hour film about the character.

When I was a kid, Aquaman was sort of the joke Superhero. He swims under water and talks to fish. Still, he was on TV (in animation) which put him ahead of the Flash (until the John Wesley Shipp series).
Here they've fleshed out his background with a tie-in to the Atlantean legend and given him a mission to save the world with a tie-in to the climate crisis.
It held my interest better than I thought it would.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I often find Nicole Kidman a bit challenging to watch. I don't know why but I always want to like her more than I do (if that makes sense).

Complete sense. In fact her presence in this was one of the reasons I've been in no hurry to watch it.

It's one of the three or four best haunted house films ever.

As I watched it, your Haunted House Movies thread sprang to mind and I wondered if this rated a mention in there. Then I forgot to look. Now I see you mentioned it in the very first post there (along with the other three).

Aquaman

It held my interest better than I thought it would.

That was the main positive for me, too. For all the reasons you mentioned I had a bit of an aversion to the character during my comic-reading days, so to make it through a long film says something about the film (as well as my bloody-minded perseverance).

That said, I wouldn't watch it again, and I have every intention of avoiding the sequel. Even though Heard's role has apparently been cut down to almost nothing, just the fact that she's been near it taints the whole thing for me.

 

[Crimson]

It's one of the three or four best haunted house films ever.

her presence in this was one of the reasons I've been in no hurry to watch it.

Likely the reason I have never watched THE OTHERS. I've enjoyed Nicole's work occasionally, but I lean towards being ambivalent about her. I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

I rarely, if ever, watch horror movies for 11 months out of the year but then watch basically nothing but horror(-ish) in October. Over the past week, I've been watching one or two per night. In no particular order:

FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) Long one of my favorite horror films and, I think, one of the two or three best vampire movies. This one is nearly an annual tradition for me. My only real quibble about movie through the years is Amanda Bearse, who I've always found a somewhat irksome actress. It hardly seemed worth the effort of saving her character from the vampire.

CRIMSON PEAK (2015) I had not seen this one before and now I know why; my instincts to avoid it were keen. I love a movie with visual flair but too much can be too much. The visuals in the film are so overdone, the (very thin) story was swamped. I could never forget I was watching overly costumed actors performing on overly decorated sets. At no point did the movie "pull me in". I fell asleep at around the 75% mark and, until then, nothing remotely interesting or spooky had occurred.

THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER (2023) I was mildly optimistic for this one, based on the lone chapter of the original DRACULA novel on shipboard. Even a rudimentary version of this story should have been easy to pull off, essentially a Victorian era ALIEN -- a group of people trapped in a confined space being hunted by an unseen force. But Hollywood, in 2023, no longer knows how to make movies. Too much CGI, frantic action and silly gore ruined any tension or atmosphere that might have built. Also, the worst vampire design ever.

BRAM STROKERS' DRACULA (1992) After the last film, I thought perhaps I'd make my way backwards through the more notable Dracula movies. I finished Coppola's version, although I find myself disliking it a bit more each time I watch it. Unlike CRIMSON PEAK, the over-the-top style adds to the movie here. It's the actors who sink it: ranging from preposterously hammy to weirdly awkward, this may be the worst acted film I've ever seen. I tried watching the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the 1974 version with Jack Palance. My patience broke early on both. I barely lasted 30 minutes into the later, but found it too sluggish and dry in the 1970s TV kind of way. Speaking of which ...

SALEM'S LOT (1979) No movie of my childhood haunted me more than this one; I don't think I've ever walked into a dark room without half expecting there to be a vampire with glowing eyes sitting in a rocking chair. It's remarkable just how creepily effective several sequences are in this production; and, therefore, also remarkable how flat and devoid of atmosphere the rest of the movie is in comparison. Typical TV stuff of the era: glacial pacing and thick-headed characters responding to events too slowly for apparently no reason than the writers needed to drag it out. But, man, when it's good it's really good.

BEETLEJUICE (1988) Weird and humorously macabre, this one is always a delight. There is only one part of the movie I dislike: Beetlejuice himself. A character who's meant to be obnoxious and annoying is still obnoxious and annoying. Fortunately he's not on screen as much as one might expected as the title character, and when he's not around the movie is a blast.

ELVIRA MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988) This one needed Tim Burton. It seemed heavily inspired by Burton's PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE and the aforementioned BEETLEJUICE, but it's not nearly as funny or as well executed. Still, Elvira's Mae West filtered through Morticia Addams routine was (and is) fun.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I've enjoyed Nicole's work occasionally, but I lean towards being ambivalent about her.

I feel much the same. I struggled to recall anything in which I've recently watched her and did a quick search of this thread to refresh my memory. Seems I watched her last year in a film called The Upside:

Nicole Kidman is a familiar face (with only one expression at that. Still, she was perfectly acceptable here).

That was pretty much my takeaway from a film where I was really impressed with a number of the performances. At this point I can't even picture her in this film.

The only film of hers that I can specifically recall watching and enjoying was The Stepford Wives and, daft as the film was, I thought she was pretty good in it.

To Die For is one I'd be interested in watching at some point, and I feel I should also watch Eyes Wide Shut one of these days. While I don't actively avoid her, I imagine I may have got round to watching these sooner with a different lead. And of course there's every chance I'll end up wishing I'd watched them years ago as I did with The Others.

I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

If you do, I'd love to know your thoughts afterwards. It may be just the remedy for this:

Too much CGI, frantic action and silly gore ruined any tension or atmosphere that might have built.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

Even if you'd dislike Nicole's performance then it's still good enough to watch.

CRIMSON PEAK (2015) I had not seen this one before and now I know why

Images of that beautiful grand staircase was all it took to make me swallow the bait. I felt a bit stupid afterwards (was it even a real set?)

BEETLEJUICE (1988) Weird and humorously macabre, this one is always a delight. There is only one part of the movie I dislike: Beetlejuice himself.

I feel exactly the same about the SHREK films. Fabulous supporting characters, but an unwatchable protagonist.

and I feel I should also watch Eyes Wide Shut one of these days.

I remember not liking it at all, but that was a very long time ago. Since it features Nicole and Tom Cruise I don't feel tempted to challenge that opinion.

To Die For is one I'd be interested in watching at some point

I believe this was sort of a dramedy.

The one Nicole Kidman film I'd really love to see is DOGVILLE. I have no idea what it is but it looks intriguing.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Totally Killer (2023)

Since it's October I've added a number of horror/thriller/slasher films to my watchlist, most of which I won't end up watching. This was chosen pretty much on the basis that it was the last one added, and so the first to appear when I entered my watchlist.

Being made this year for Amazon it's fair to say expectations were low (incidentally, before watching the updated Leo The Lion logo at the start of this film I had no idea that MGM was now owned by Amazon).

Had I read an outline of the premise, I may well have steered well clear of this. In general I'd prefer to watch a straight horror than a "aren't we knowing and clever" comedy-horror but the balance was pretty tolerable. Then, a little way into the film, someone mentioned time-travel. While it didn't seem feasible, my heart still sank a bit at the prospect (Christ - wasn't Stab 5 or 6 said to have done this in Scream 4). And when the film followed through, it went from the potentially sublime to the potentially ridiculous.

Naturally, the trip back to 1987 was an excuse for writers to do the knowing, clever, ironic references to pop culture. Thanks to borrowing heavily from the film Back To The Future is mentioned a fair bit, and there's a reference to the cross-time capers of Endgame. Michael Myers gets a mention or two and someone in 1987 asks "What's Scream? (the answer: "it's a movie you haven't seen yet that you'll think stars Drew Barrymore but doesn't").

There are also attempts to make commentary regarding societal differences between Gen-X and Gen-Z, with much of the humour coming from protagonist Jamie's(!) shocked reactions to being touched on the arm by a man, casual homophobia, smoking or a party with underage drinking. It's fairly ham-fisted, and one can sense the writers' need to get across that while they might portray their 1987 characters doing X, they don't endorse it. As a it never quite feels a truthful portrayal of the era. But then with this genre it's not like I was expecting profundity and the clash of eras is fun enough. I dare say Back To The Future's take on the Fifties might seem clunky and cartoony to someone who lived through that decade. All the same, this film does ask the viewer to swallow 1980s characters having vocal creak and using frequent 21st Century speak ("super-[whatever]" is used a number of times, while one 1987 teen even casts an eye over a vast collection of media and says "video games much?").

Something about the energy and the film's unspoken raison d'être suggests this film's ambition is revive the horror genre for a new generation à la Scream. Problem is, the genre now includes the postmodern ironic thing which (a) came into existence for the same reason; (b) doesn't easily itself to being made over and (c) helped ensure viewers are aware of - and cynical towards - tropes. In a sense, then, this film feels a little like a vegan, gluten-free version of the same thing re-presented in recycled, carbon-neutral new packaging. This isn't to say it doesn't work, though.

Yes, I've been critical and nit-picky (for a change!), but as I said I went in with low expectations. I wanted a silly, cheesy slasher and I got one. I was prepared for low-budget fun and I got it. While the low-budget feels at times like the 2021 series of I Know What You Did Last Summer, it's also fairly successful at evoking the spirit of genre films from the Eighties and Nineties: the silent protagonist resembles Michael Myers (if Michael had a rictus grin) but has Scream's whodunnit element and an antagonist that runs and plays psychological games.

I really didn't think I needed to see a slasher that included the protagonist going back 35 years, discovering her mother is a bitch, accidentally pushing her parents together too soon, pairing up with her best friend's mother and affecting the future when her attempts to stop the 1987 killings changes the order of the victims. It turns out I did.

When this film works, it really works.

Would I watch it again? Yep. Would I care to see a sequel? I think I might.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Would I watch it again? Yep. Would I care to see a sequel? I think I might.

I'll move it back to my Prime watch list!

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'll move it back to my Prime watch list!

Great.

(Except I'll probably feel overly responsible if you hate it ).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014)

I'm probably approaching this from an unusual perspective: I've never watched the 1976 original film and don't know the story and my sole frame of reference is a passing mention of the film in Scream (enough to put it on my radar, but one of many that I've just never got round to viewing. I might have seen a trailer or clips and thought it looked a bit too "raw" in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre kind of way).

Ahead of watching this 2014 version I knew barely anything, other than a line or two from the synopsis that showed when I clicked into it (indicating it was something about a small town where murders began happening again after 65 years). I didn't know who produced, directed or starred in it.

My one assumption about the film was that this would be a remake of the 1976 original (presumably, I thought, with a much longer gap between the original sin killings and the resumption). I'd guessed that this would probably be more expensive, slicker and glossier than the original.

Since I'd expected this to be a straight remake, what I really hadn't expected was for the film to acknowledge the existence of the 1976 film. Even more fascinating, the original film is not even a reboot or sequel to the original. Here, just as in our reality, the 1976 film is a fictionalised account of a real-life series of murders, and its existence - and annual Hallowe'en screening - is a source of shame and pain for many residents of Texarkana. I can imagine this was a controversial choice, particularly to those who are fond of the original. It could be viewed as somewhat dismissive of the original, positioning itself as more "real" than the 1976 film (it even includes an actor playing the real-life original director's son as a conspiracy theorist). But to someone without any kind of attachment to the original film this feels like a particularly inspired choice, adding to the layers and giving an almost documentary-like realism without having the deadpan narration which, let's face it, would look a bit silly today. To me, it comes across as a love letter to the original, recognising the enormous impact it had and still has for many. Reading up on the film today it seems it's described as a metafictional sequel (or meta-sequel). I don't know of other examples of this (though I dare say there are many), but it was perfect in this case as it helped me familiarise myself with both the real-life crimes and the original film when beforehand I wasn't familiar with either.

I don't believe I knew that the original film was based on a series of real-life killings. Naturally the film discusses the real-life killings, and it does so in large part through exploring the original film and the town's relationship with it. The killings in this film are copycat killings based either upon the real-life events of the Forties or the fictionalised account in the 1976 film (at least one or two of the new killings are based upon scenarios that only appeared in the original film, so it's clear there's an argument to be made for the "horror films inspire real-life violence" voices).

With this being a newer film, I was a little concerned that it might have the violence amped up. It's quite possible it does: there's certainly some imagery that's quite horrific. And while most slasher flicks feature sex-obsessed characters, this one feels more sexually frank. It's a bit more specific than some soft-core groans beneath a strategically-placed white bed-sheet (most victims are either on the verge of consummating or have just done so, and we know exactly who does what to whom. One slaying even occurs during a blow job). However, it never felt too much, in large part because the film feels particularly stylish.

The film's cinematography is a definite winner for me. Some scenes - particularly those during conversations the film's protagonist has with allies - appear to have been shot during golden hour, bathing characters in red light and adding a warm, magical, natural-looking glow. Elsewhere, drab olive filters with long shadows are prevalent for much of the film, adding to the atmosphere and looking very much like a David Fincher film. Indeed, the film's aesthetic paired with the investigative angle based upon real-life serial killings brought Fincher's Zodiac to mind a number of times. There are also some Hitchcockian directional flourishes which add interest. One scene, as someone explores microfiche in an archive, strongly evokes early Columbo episodes.

The film's climax, sadly, is perhaps the most predictable. Not The Phantom's identity itself (no less than four of my suspects at different times ended up as victims) but the fact that the inevitable confrontation and reveal with its series of twists felt very Scream-like. It was arguably just that bit too much and felt as though it was there for no other reason than to please a certain demographic. The film was so absorbing, though, that I can forgive it this little indulgence.

As far as the cast goes, I recognised Anthony Andrews from Scream 4. It took me most of the film to recognise Veronica Cartwright since she plays this role brilliantly and so differently from anything in which I've seen her before. And I didn't recognise Midnight Caller's Gary Cole at all. Today I've read that Halloween 4 and 5's Danielle Harris was present as a townsperson, but I never spotted her. All the other cast were unknown to me, and all worked perfectly.

I'm glad I never read up or look at reviews ahead of watching. Looking at writings about the film today, it seems it was poorly received. I thoroughly enjoyed it, though: perhaps because expectations were low; perhaps because the film's classy aesthetics elevated it and made it feel richer than it was. Or perhaps it genuinely was a really good film and I just have better taste than others.

Strangely, I still don't feel especially interested in watching the 1976 film but, given time, I'd be up for watching this 2014 version again.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

(Except I'll probably feel overly responsible if you hate it ).

If that film turns out to be a waste of time then I'll simply have to destroy you.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Sharon Stone as a female gunslinger who rides into town seeking a vengeance which only becomes clear as the film progresses. Also an early appearance by Leonardo DiCaprio.
Stone spends a lot of time brooding, simultaneously honouring and subverting the western tropes. Whether by accident or design, her character shares the name Ellen with Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens and I rate the two among the top three female-led action films (the third being The Long Kiss Goodnight starring Gena Davis).