Lionsgate releases the seventh and allegedly final installment in the popular torture porn franchise – which, they promise, saves the best for last. Tobin Bell is back as Jigsaw, along with Cary Elwes, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Sean Patrick Flaner, Gina Holden, and Tanedra Howard. Kevin Greutert directs from a screenplay by Marcus Dunstan & Patrick Melton.
Last year, SAW VI underperformed, perhaps because Paramount’s release of the indie horror hit PARANORMAL ACTIVITY offered audiences a welcome change of pace in the horror genre. This year, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is hitting theatres on October 29; SAW 3-D will arrive one week sooner.
Release date: October 29.
[serialposts]
Tag: torture porn
THE LOVED ONES – A Torture Film NOT Playing In The States?!
This past decade, cinemas in the U.S. and around the world have seen a rise in a genre of horror film that has been lovingly dubbed “Torture Porn”. Should that descriptive moniker not be enough, perhaps a line-up of the most notorious suspects will give you a better picture – films like SAW, HOSTEL, and more recently THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE. The meat of these films (no pun intended) revolves around a group of characters being hacked and maimed in ways that would make the Spanish Inquisition go, “Whoa…THAT’S a bit much!” Despite revolted critics and a slowly tapering fanbase, these films continue to pull in audiences each time they are released.
So it is always surprising to hear the news that a movie of this genre has yet to be gobbled up by U.S. distribution and released amongst the populace. Case in point – THE LOVED ONES, an Australian film directed by Sean Byrne. The film revolves around Brent Mitchell (Xavier Samuel, THE TWILIGHT SERIES) a high school kid who throws himself into a world of drugs and heavy metal after causing the accidental death of his father. Things are looking up however as he enters a relationship with the kind, caring, and gorgeous Holly (Victoria Thane). The two plan on going to the prom together, but are thwarted when Brent is kidnapped by the jealous Lola (Robin McLeavy) and taken to what amounts to her family’s version of a backwoods homecoming dance. What follows is…well…lets just say hooking up after the dance is the last thing on Brent’s mind.
The film has been garnering a ton of buzz through the festival circuit but as of yet has no plans to be released in the U.S. Check out the trailer and decide whether or not that is a good thing.
[serialposts]
Cybersurfing: Salon seeks meaning in Torture Porn
Earlier this week, Salon.com posted an interesting article regarding the recent trend in “Torture Porn” horror, in which films like SAW and HOSTEL show graphic depictions of mutilation and gore. Interviewee Thomas Fahy, the director of the American Studies Program at Long Island University, approaches the subject in a scholarly and insightful way, making valid and interesting points about underlying social commentary in the horror genre. However, there are a few points Mr. Fahy overlooked that deserve to be mentioned.
Not every reason for the success of these movies is related to some cultural relevance.
There is the very real possibility that, at the start of this whole thing, audiences were just flat-out bored with the same horror structure. The only twist ever added was that the good guy doesn’t get away. With the first SAW movie, people were shown something that made them squirm again, much as they did during the first horror movie they ever saw. Freddy putting a razor-tipped hand through someone’s chest had become old hat, but a man forced to saw through his leg to escape – the plausibility alone fascinated everyone. The continued success, despite the declining quality, could simply be a result of people being interested to see how the each new sequel will top the previous one.
Insecurity.
Should you want to delve into cultural significance, an alternative theory that at least applies to the American audience is the idea that our world has been turned upside down. From a cultural point of view, the last decade has shown not only a decline in the American image abroad, but also here at home. From being attacked, to the war and its subsequent fallout, to recession – we as a people find ourselves reeling and uncertain of where we will land. These torture porn films provide a focus for this feeling, showing characters trapped in dire situations – without understanding why – struggling to right the ship once more. The end may not be pretty, but there is sometimes a sense of hope that at least things can move on.
History Repeats Itself.
Despite the examples Mr. Fahy makes in the article, it can certainly be argued that the basic horror movie mores are still present. While it may be true that THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake has a female attacker, the fact remains that the victim is portrayed as a helpless girl who must be saved and avenged by her parents. Also, the recent remakes of famously violent horror films aren’t adding and expanding to the message of the originals. It is all about the money, playing off audience recognition of a famous title with the idea that, in today’s society, they can get away with more! And as said before, bloody curiosity may just get the better of moviegoers in that respect.
An important thing to consider is that these movies, for all of their twisted traps and diabolical deaths, are in no way pushing the genre forward. People will, as they did prior to the first SAW, get tired and move on to the next shtick. Torture porn may be here, but not for good.
ARTICLE LINKS:
SALON.COM (Original Article): http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/06/07/philosophy_of_horror_movies?source=newsletter
NYTIMES.COM: http://nymag.com/movies/features/15622/
SPINETINGLER MAGAZINE: http://www.spinetinglermag.com/2010/03/31/the-new-six-figure-torture-porn-industry/
Last House on the Left (2009) DVD Review
Remaking LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT seemed like a dubious proposition at best; the original was so much a part of its cycnical ’70s era (Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate) that transplanting it to contemporary times seemed as if it could rob the story of vital cultural context. Yet somehow the new HOUSE works better than expected, perhaps because we had come full circle to a cultural context roughly equivalent to the early ’70s (Bush, Iraq, Torturegate). Consequently, the remake seemed weirdly appropriate in the waning days of the previous administration – not an anachronisms ripped from its own time and plopped down haphazardly into a new era.
The new version of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT does not seek to replicate the grungy, semi-documentary feel of the original. It follows the basic outlines, but there are several notable variations that prevent the remake from being a clone. Some of the overt sexuality violence has been toned down, but Krug and company’s heinous assault, rape, and murder of innocent victims packs as much impact as ever, creating that rare horror film moment when the gore-hound audience, instead of shouting “Ain’t it Cool!” in approval, is shocked into dumbfounded silence. Whether it’s an improvement over the original, is hard to say, but the new HOUSE on the block stands on its own foundation.
Not everything works as well as it should. Krug’s escape from police custody is an absurd movie-moment: when his brother and his girlfriend ram the police car in which he is being escorted, Krug somehow survives without a scratch, while both officers are lethally wounded.
And in a plot point deleted from the 1972 LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, after being raped and shot, Mari Collingham (Sara Paxton) survives not only long enough to tell her parents what happened; she’s is actually well enough to recover, if her parents can get her to a hospital.* This is supposed to increase the suspense when Mari’s attackers coincidentally show up at the titular “Last House on the Left” looking for shelter in a storm, but it blurs the perfect movie logic of the original, which focused on the gruesome revenge the parents took, the events playing out like a cathartic dream of karmic payback. The resulting cat-and-mouse scenes go on longer than they should, throwing off the rhythms, so the much-awaited revenge has trouble building to a perfect climax. Consequently, the film seems almost forced to add what feels like a tacked-on gore scene in which the villainous murderer-rapist Krug (Garret Dillahunt) gets what he deserves.
DVD DETAILS
Rogue’s single-disc release of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT offers the theatrical cut and an unrated cut. Apparently this is achieved with branching technology, as both versions are on the same side of the disc, and the Menu warns that the unrated version may cause havoc with some older DVD players.
In any case, the widescreen transfer is a beauty. The soundtrack is available in English, Spanish, and French, with subtitles options for Spanish, French, and English for the hearing impaired.
The unrated cut does not differ significantly from the R-rated theatrical version, which was plenty brutal on its own terms, featuring one of the most repugnant rape scenes ever committed to celluloid. There is an additional insert close-up of Mari’s friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac) being stabbed in the belly, but the overall impact of the scenes is little changed, and you won’t see anything to match the over-the-top insanity of the 1972 film. (It is interesting that the heterosexual rape scene is acceptable in a mainstream nationwide release, but original flm’s enforced lesbianism had to be left out, along with the scene of Mari’s mother offering a blowjob to her daughter’s rapist and then biting off his penis).
Bonus features are slim, consisting of “Deleted Scenes” and “A Look Inside.”
The deleted scenes would be more accurately described as extended scenes or alternate takes. The deleted footage is mostly minor transitional stuff, but there is one over-long suspense scene showing Krug’s son Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) sneaking in to retrieve the gun that plays a role later. There is an amusing gag-reel moment: after Mari’s parents give her the keys to the family car, the stunt drive standing in for Sara Paxton hits a tree on the way out of the driveway. There is also a very impressive shot of John Collingwood’s bloody revenge on Krug; it’s the same action seen in the finished film, but presented here in a single take, wherein the distinction between live-actor and special effect is absolutely invisible.
The “Inside Look” is a promotional film – basically the trailer with added interviews from director Dennis Illiadis and producer Wes Craven, who discusses the rational behind remaking the original (which he wrote and directed). You won’t get much insider information, but you will hear Craven and Illiadis echo the 1972 advertising campaign: “Just keep telling yourself: It’s only a movie.”
*There is also a weird moment in which both parents react to the realization that Mari has been raped – as if being nearly murdered were bad enough, but sexual violation is somehow worse.
[serialposts]
Steven Sheil on "Mum & Dad" – A CFQ Interview
Steven Sheil’s MUM & DAD was shot in seventeen days, on a micro-budget of only £100,000, yet the 2008 release manages to stands up as one of the best British horrors in recent years. How did Sheil pull off this amazing feat? Cinefantastique Online’s British correspondend Deborah Louse Robinson was lucky enough to collar the writer and director and ask him all about the movie-making experience…
CINEFANTASTIQUE ONLINE: You made this film on a low budget under huge time constraints. Did this make for a stressful shoot, or was it still an enjoyable experience?
STEVEN SHEIL: The shoot was really good fun. We decided early on that the only way to deal with all the constraints was to try and work with them rather than against them – we didn’t want to be moaning all the time about not having enough money, because we knew the budget going in, so by the time we got onto set we were just determined to get a film made – whichever way we could. Also, because people were working for low wages, we wanted to try and make the experience more of an adventure than a chore, so that people wouldn’t end up resenting what they were doing. Another thing, at least as far as the cast were concerned, was that the subject matter of the film is pretty grim, so we wanted to try and make sure that there was some relief from all the killing, maiming and wrongness.
CFQ: How long did it take you to write?
STEVEN SHEIL: I wrote the initial 20 page outline in about 3 weeks, because it had to be submitted for a deadline. Then I had about a month to turn that into a script. We ended up with something about 70 pages long, which is how it stood at the time we got told we’d get the money. Then I did another couple of drafts – maybe a week each – to extend the film to full feature length. All in all, it was really quick, with minimal changes from the initial outline.
CFQ: When you’re writing a film do you generally know how it’s going to end before you start writing, or do you just start writing and see where it takes you?
STEVEN SHEIL: I outline everything first, and test that out on a few people before I take it to script. I like writing fast because it means that it’s easier to keep the core ideas of the film in your head. Some other scripts that I’ve written have taken a long time to develop and it’s really hard to keep them going once they’ve been in your head for a couple of years. In a way, I think it would be good to be less precious about scripts as such, and to concentrate more on the central ideas of a film – really boil it down to the essence and work off that. I think that the script development process is a relatively recent addition to the whole idea of filmmaking, and I’m a quite ambivalent about how it works.
CFQ: MUM & DAD is pretty shocking in places; did you have any problems getting it past the BBFC?
STEVEN SHEIL: From what I’ve heard the BBFC watched the film three times before deciding to pass it uncut. I didn’t think that we’d have any problems – there was one shot that we changed in the edit at the last minute because I thought it might cause problems (it featured a hardcore pornographic image), but that was more to do with the fact that we’d run out of money and wouldn’t have had the funds to recut and resubmit the film if it hadn’t been passed…
CFQ: MUM & DAD is perfectly cast: Did you have the actors in mind when you wrote it or did chance bring you together?
STEVEN SHEIL: No, I don’t ever write with actors in mind; I like to keep my options open. We used a casting director for the film, Anna Kennedy, who brought a lot of people to us, and we found all of them through that process. Perry had already been recommended to me by a couple of friends who are directors (including Chris Cooke, co-director of the ‘Mayhem’ festival), so I knew I wanted to have a look at him. We were just looking for people who wouldn’t be scared off by the script (we had a lot of actors who refused to turn up for auditions because of the nature of the roles) and who would play it straight – that is, they wouldn’t do too much of a ‘horror film’ performance.
CFQ: The lack of any real musical score only serves to heighten the tension in the film. Was this a conscious decision or was it down to budget?
STEVEN SHEIL: It was a conscious decision that grew out of both an awareness of the limitations of the budget, but also out of a desire not to make the film too much of a straight horror. I didn’t want to have to rely on stabs of music to make the audience jump; I wanted the film to have more of a creeping, insidious effect. The idea of using the planes came from the setting at Heathrow airport, obviously, but it’s also the sound of my childhood – I grew up next to the airport so that noise is really evocative for me. That said, I initially promised my producer, Lisa Trnovski, that I wouldn’t have any music apart from the song over the closing titles (‘900 miles’, an old American folk song, which I knew we wouldn’t have to pay publishing rights for, recorded by the brilliant Gemma Ray), then threw loads of music into the Christmas scene, which we then had to scrabble about to try and afford. I don’t think she’s forgiven me yet.
CFQ: Although we’ve seen sick families in films before, MUM & DAD comes across as a very original film, and I think a lot of that is down to the direction. You directed it as if this was a normal, real-life family, in an ordinary British soap opera, and this makes it even more shocking. How surreal was it to be shooting such extraordinary scenes in such an ordinary way?
STEVEN SHEIL: It did feel quite odd sometimes – I had a couple of moments where I kind of stepped out of myself and saw what was happening from outside – Perry Benson wearing a dress and covered in blood, staggering between the washing lines of a suburban garden, for example – and it just made me laugh. It felt weird that we’d somehow managed to convince so many people to be a part of it all. I guess one of the things I wanted to do with Mum & Dad was to play up the normality and not be afraid to make the film feel a bit sit-commy, a bit soapy. Those are the places where you’re most likely to see realistic portrayals of British families – it doesn’t happen so much in British film – it’s either super-grimy kitchen sink council estate realism, or tourist board rom-com London. Mum & Dad has got its share of grimy realism, but it’s more inspired by EastEnders than Ken Loach.
CFQ: Is there anything you would change about the film now it’s all done and dusted, or are you 100% happy with the finished product?
STEVEN SHEIL: If I had the chance I’d go back and make sure that we got an extreme close-up of the toe-kissing. We couldn’t do it at the time because we didn’t have the right lens, and it’s always bugged me. Apart from that, obviously there are things I think I could have done better, but I don’t really dwell on them. I think given the time and the budget and all the constraints we did a great job.
CFQ: How did you feel the first time you watched the end product? It must have been a strange and exciting experience finally seeing how it had all come together.
STEVEN SHEIL: We cut the film on an edit suite where all the footage had been digitised at really low-resolution, so I got really used to seeing it as flat, ugly and video-y, so when we actually got close to finishing the film – conforming it and grading it – it was like a revelation – it just got better and better looking. The first screening we had was a cast and crew which went really well, but I find it hard to watch anything I’ve made – I feel really self-conscious about it.
CFQ: We all know that getting your first film made can be very difficult. Tell us how it happened?
STEVEN SHEIL: Sol Gatti-Pascual, who was running a scheme called Microwave for Film London, had seen a horror short that I made a few years ago called ‘Cry’ and she invited me to come and meet her so that she could tell me about Microwave and see if I was interested in applying. The scheme is designed to make 10 microbudget features, each costing £100,000, with half of that coming from Film London. On the way to the meeting, I was toying with ideas to pitch and what would become Mum & Dad wormed its way to the front of my brain. I pitched Sol the idea of making ‘The Heathrow Airport Chain Saw Massacre’ and she told me to go away and write it. I applied, found a producer and then just kept going. We were selected from among 70 or so applicants and then had to go and find the rest of the money. I went to Em-media, who had financed a couple of my shorts and asked them for the rest. They said yes and then we were set to go. It was a ridiculously quick process really.
CFQ: Do you think, now you have this one under your belt, that the next one will be easier?
STEVEN SHEIL: I don’t know. Easier to make? Probably not, in some ways. I don’t know if I’ll ever have the freedom that I had on Mum & Dad, and despite all the constraints, it was a pretty straightforward shoot. The other scripts that I’m writing are more complicated – bigger casts, more locations, a lot more production design. As for funding – I think Mum & Dad has been seen by enough people that it should be easier to get to have meetings with people who might be able to fund my next film. But I’m taking nothing for granted – I know how hard it is to actually make yourself a career making films in this country.
CFQ: What do your own Mum & Dad think of the film? [I lent my parents the DVD, and when they handed it back, their faces spoke volumes!!]
STEVEN SHEIL: I was a bit worried about my parents watching it, especially as they used to work at the airport, so some things might have struck them as being a bit close to home. I pre-warned them about the nature of it – I know they don’t like horror films – but then they told me they liked it. They liked the humour of it, and the Christmas scene. Don’t read anything into that about our past family Christmases, though…
CFQ: Who would you say was your greatest inspiration from this genre?
STEVEN SHEIL: In some ways it’s obvious, but Texas Chain Saw Massacre was big inspiration, more for the feel of the film than for the plot – although there are similarities. I just love the way that TCM makes an audience feel.
CFQ: What can we expect next?
STEVEN SHEIL: I’ve got a few projects I’m working on – another horror, again with a family theme, and a couple of twisted science-fiction films.
CFQ: Finally, and I have to ask – you do know that it’s very, very, very wrong, don’t you!?
STEVEN SHEIL: Yes. Yes, I do.
[serialposts]
Dee Snider's Strangeland (1998) Film Review
Dee Snider’s STRANGELAND 2: DISCIPLE is scheduled for production later this year, some eleven years after the first STRANGELAND was released on DVD. Dee Snider has been fighting the courts to claim back his creative rights over the movie, after the original production company Shooting Gallery had all of its material seized by the government. Finally, this year, he won and is promising us a sequel much more shocking and terrifying than the first, but is it really a case of better late than never? I revisited the original to review it, knowing that the release of the sequel would spark a new interest.
Firstly, I have a confession to make, and I may as well just come out with it: I’m the world’s biggest Dee Snider fan. I love the guy. My admiration for him is borderline obsession. So could this film possibly live up to my expectations of it? Well, to be fair, no. That’s not to say it’s all bad, however.
Carleton Henricks [played by Snider] is a glorious and menacing villain, obsessed with tattoos and body modification. He looks intense to say the least, with his flaming red Mohawk, pointed teeth and multiple piercings, not to mention a fantastically muscular and heavily tattooed body; he is a very intimidating character. Carleton, using the name Captain Howdy [the same as the demonic presence in The Exorcist] frequents internet chat rooms under the guise of an ordinary teenage boy. He invites the people he meets to ‘party,’ and once he has them, he tortures them. When he lures Detective Gage [played by Kevin Gage]’s daughter into his insane world, he keeps her with his other ‘party guests’ in his candle-lit basement where he sadistically tortures them whilst he gently explains his reasoning. The detective tracks him down, and he is arrested, prosecuted and declared insane. After four years and now a reformed character he is released with a whole new image and subdued demeanour. [I never want to see Dee Snider as a bespectacled cardigan wearer again; this was the most disturbing image in the whole film for me!]. He is hounded by the unforgiving locals who are hell bent on revenge, and when Jackson Roth [A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Robert Englund] gets together with a group of friends, Hendricks is lynched and left for dead.
Of course, it couldn’t end there! Surviving the ordeal, Hendricks reverts to his old sinister self and sets out to terrorise those responsible…….
The best thing about Strangeland is Dee Snider’s character. Sinister, perverse, and yet strangely charming, Captain Howdy is brilliant: he looks amazing; he is well acted and thoroughly believable. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast are not so great. In particular Kevin Gage was terrible; the screenplay went some way to excuse his lack of emotion at his daughter being taken, by explaining that he is ‘a man of steel’, but even with this reasoning, his calmness is more down to poor acting than bad writing. Robert Englund, however, is brilliant opposite Snider as the equally evil, but socially more acceptable rough neck, and it is promised that he will also appear in the sequel.
The screenplay is fair. For a first attempt, Snider did a good job, apart from one line that must be the worst line I’ve ever heard: On discovering his daughter trapped – naked in a cage, her lips sewn shut, and having endured agonising torture at the hands of this mad man – Gage puts his gun to Henricks’ throat and says ‘Give me a reason!’ What? There’s the reason right there swinging naked in that cage, you looney!
The direction was poor and did nothing to build any kind of atmosphere, so I hope there’ll be a different director for the sequel. The soundtrack was good, including tracks from Megadeth, Pantera, Marilyn Manson, and Anthrax.
Strangeland arrived in theatres before torture porn became a recognized sub-genre (post-SAW and HOSTILE), and it may have been a bit ahead of its time to be properly appreciated. With decent actors and a good director, Strangeland could have been brilliant; instead the film is below average. Captain Howdy was every bit as good as I’d expected, however, and I have high hopes for the sequel, if it is well produced with a talented director and a strong supporting cast.
DEE SNIDER’S STRANGELAND (1998). Directed by John Pieplow. Screenplay by Dee Snider. Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage, Elizabeth Pena, Robert Englund.
Martyrs (2008) – Horror Film Review
Pascal Laugier’s disturbing, brutal, French horror movie is not always comfortable to watch, but in contrast to the other recent torture-porn films, the torture in MARTYRS has a point.
At the beginning we see young girl Lucie escape from a facility where she has been chained to a chair and brutally tortured. Unable to speak of it, even to her close friend Anna (who takes on the role of both friend and surrogate mother), Lucie is tormented by the image of a girl she couldn’t save. She believes this girl is with her, and means her grave harm. At one point during their childhood, Anna finds Lucie in the bathtub alone, covered in cuts and gashes, cowering in the bloody water and saying “It wasn’t me, it wasn’t me.”
Fifteen years after her escape, Lucie has managed to track down those responsible, and she is determined to have her revenge. With her ghoulish and disfigured imaginary foe never far away, she bursts into an ordinary looking family home with a shotgun. When things gets out of hand, poor Anna gets involved, and the unbelievable decision to help her friend leads down a very frightening path. This is one of the major problems with this film. Anna’s decisions throughout are completely ridiculous. I was utterly bewildered when she rang her mother from the scene of a horrifying blood bath and told her she was fine! Calling the police, would surely have been the better option!
I don’t want to spoil the plot by saying too much, but suffice it to say that this is not your ordinary torture flick. There’s enough strange and shocking imagery to keep even the most hardened horror fan happy; in fact, the film is nothing but blood and shocks from beginning to end. It’s hard to believe that there can be a valid reason for anyone to treat another human being the way some of the people are treated in this film, but there is a reason and that’s what makes MARTYRS more than just another torture flick….but not necessarily better.
The filmmakers let us know that the word ‘martyr’ is derived from the Greek word ‘witness’ and in MARTYRS the point of the torture is to find a true martyr who can bear witness to the pain, the blindness that follows, and move through it to tell what lies beyond. Whilst this is a very interesting topic and I’ve no doubt there’d be many people curious to know what does lie beyond, I wish the reason had been more believable. It would surely take more than this curiosity to make seemingly ordinary people turn into sadistic torturers, and it is this nonsensical reasoning that weakens the film.
Unlike some shock horrors that have tongue-in-cheek moments, MARTYRS is dark and relentless. It doesn’t ease up, and it is not a pleasure to watch. As Anna is tortured she goes into her own world, and we don’t even have her screams to break the silence.
If you’re just looking for horror movie with shocking imagery and plenty of action that’s a little bit weird, then you will enjoy MARTYRS. Be warned, however: you could spend a bit of time shouting at the screen ‘call the police, for god’s sake, call the police!’
MARTYRS (2008). Written and directed by Pascal Laugier. In French with English subtitles. Cast: Morjana Aloui, Mylene Jampanoi, Catherine Begin, Robrt Toupin, Patricia Ulasne, Juliette Gosselin, Xavier Dolan, Isabelle Chasse, Emilie Miskdijan, Mike Chute.
B.T.K. – Horror Film Review
Recently released on region one DVD, Michael Feifer’s B.T.K. describes itself as ‘a fictional film based on a real character’. That character is the serial killer Dennis L. Rader, who was arrested in March 2005 for the murder of ten people, in a killing spree that spanned two decades. Rader was known as “B.T.K.” because of his penchant for binding, torturing and then killing his victims. He was perceived by those who knew him, as an ordinary, law abiding, family man. He was President of the Congregation Council at his church and Cub Scout leader. Married, with two daughters, no one suspected he had another, more sinister side.
B.T.K. does not tell us the story from the beginning, but picks up after Rader has been killing for many years already. The film shows us how, whilst working as a compliance officer (the perfect job for such a control freak), Rader chooses his victims by accusing them of minor offenses and seeing how they react. Those who argue don’t live long enough to regret it: Rader goes back to their house later and kills them. He gets his sexual kicks by watching them suffer, seeing the horror in their eyes as he suffocates or strangles them. There are a few gruesome moments, but the sheer terror of these doesn’t come across because of the unrealistic reactions of the victims.
I was curious to see how Kane Hodder, most famous for his role as Jason Vorhees in some of the FRIDAY THE 13th movies, would fare without his hockey mask. There is no doubt he can pull off a machete wielding, maniac; unfortunately, as Rader, his performance is average at best. Luckily for him, alongside Amy Lindon as Rader’s wife Susan, he almost looks good!
B.T.K. does not tell us much about what makes Rader tick. Feifer does make the odd clumsy attempt to put us in the picture, such as when Rader tells his victim about his urges and explains why he feels the need to do what he does, but it is patently apparent that this is the only way Feifer could get his message to us, and it feels as if he cheated by writing it in such a blatant way. In fact the screenwriting is below par throughout the film, which is surprising since this isn’t Feifer’s first serial killer film.
Feifer’s direction can only be described as average. There are moments that should have supplied the jump-scares; however, there is no build up of tension, and the musical score is weak, adding nothing to the atmosphere, so these potential moments pass by, unnoticed.
This is such a shame, because B.T.K. could have been a very frightening film. The story has potential. There’s nothing scarier than an average guy, living an ordinary life, who in his spare time tortures and brutally kills, before going home to his family and carrying on as if nothing has happened. Unfortunately, the story is not well told, and as a result the film is awasted opportunity.
NOTE: This film is not to be confused with B.T.K. KILLER, which was also released by Lionsgate Home Entertainment.
Lionsgate Home Entertainment’s website lists no special features for its Region 1 DVD (released in the U.S. on May 12). The Region 2 disc features an Audio Commentary with Director Michael Feifer and Actor Kane Hodder, and a Behind The Scenes featurette.
[serialposts]
The Collector opens July 31 – Watch the Trailer
Freestyle Releasing unleashes this horror-thriller from Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the screenwriting team behind FEAST and the recent SAW sequels. If nothing else, the premise – a combo of crime-thriller and torture-porn – is certainly intriguing: a thief named Arkin (Josh Stewart) breaks into his employer’s house but finds that the inhabitants have been taken prisoner by a deranged psycho, forcing Arkin into the role of reluctant hero. Marcus Dunstan directs. Madeline Zima, Michael Reilly Burke, Andrea Roth, and Juan Fernandez fill out the cast.
[serialposts]
Eden Lake (2008) – Horror Film Review
James Watkins’ EDEN LAKE won Empire’s Best Horror Award 2009, and was also nominated for their Best British Film Award. The film has some fine, young, British actors performing brilliantly as the threatening teenagers, most notably Jack O’Connell [ring leader Brett], Finn Atkins [Paige] and Thomas Turgoose [whom the London Critics’ Circle awarded their Young British Performer of the Year award to, for his excellent portrayal of young Cooper].
Nursery worker Jenny [Kelly Reilly] and her boyfriend Steve [Michael Fassbender] are heading to an idyllic and secluded lake to spend a blissful weekend together. His plan is to propose to her in these perfect, romantic surroundings. Only a few minutes into the film their satellite navigation system advises them ‘at your first opportunity, turn around’. If only they’d heeded this advice! Of course, they ignore it, instead driving off-road to Steve’s favourite spot by the lake. Almost immediately their peace is shattered by a group of obnoxious teenagers, hell bent on making their weekend miserable.
The sensible thing to do upon encountering these obdurate youths would be to leave…..quickly. But Steve, using the mature argument of ‘we were here first’ is having none of it. Why anyone would stay within spitting distance of such unsavoury characters as a matter of principle, is beyond me, but it is a move that both Steve and Jenny will later regret.
When they confront the gang, for stealing their belongings and their car, there’s a violent altercation and Steve accidentally kills ringleader Brett’s dog. So begins the most horrifying story of violence, torture and savagery I have ever witnessed.
The problem with Eden Lake, is that, unlike most horror movies, this one is believable. In fact, in the U.K. teenagers like this [known as ‘chavs’, or ‘hoodies’] are not uncommon, and crimes not dissimilar to those in Eden Lake have actually been committed. No doubt a result of bad parenting – which was a result of bad parenting – these teenagers simply don’t seem to know when the line has been crossed, when things have gone, way, way too far. They have no conscience.
Because of the realistic nature of Eden Lake, it is extremely uncomfortable to watch. The nightmare ordeal this couple endure at the hands of this group of teenagers is disturbing and barbaric and leaves a nasty after-taste. Because of the unimaginable terror and the credible way it is directed and acted, this is not a film you will forget in a hurry.
Eden Lake shows perfectly how things can escalate out of control, how other people will join the violence to save their own skin, and how parents will do absolutely anything to defend their children, no matter how revolting those children are. It holds a huge mirror up to the worst society has to offer, and the reflection is a blinding and horrifying image.
If you like your horror movies truly horrifying, Eden Lake is as good as it gets.
EDEN LAKE (2008). Written and directed by James Watkins. Cast: Kelly Reilly, Michael Fassbender, Tara Ellis, Jack O’Connell, Finn Atkins, Jumayn Hunter, Thomas Turgoose, Thomas Gill, Shaun Dooley.