ESSIE'S LITTLE BLOG OF HORRORS

There. I told you I'd get it done. Ok, granted, it's technically the small hours of Monday morning not Sunday evening. But still, there is something fitting about writing these updates in the small hours of  the morning. It is dark outside, all the little creatures are asleep, an eerie wind blows...

Fine, I'm in a suburb of  a large metropolis not in the wild wastes of noweher, but with the right film running before you it can sure feel like it....

Now, this one will be particularly interesting for those of you who may think "all horror films are alike". For those who prefer their horror on a rather more subtle scale, we have gothic. For those who want to"crank it up a bit" we have grindhouse. Not sure what I'm on about? Scroll right down if you are not faint of heart... All will become clear...

Happy viewing,
Essie

"DON’T LOOK NOW" BUT THERE'S SOMETHING CREEPING UP ON YOU...

I have never read anything by Daphne Du Maurier. She is, however, one of those writers I have had the nagging feeling I would really get to enjoy if I could find ten minutes in my life to actually sit down and read. Oh I know what you’re going to say, there’s always time, read on the commute etc… But see, a lot of her work contains Gothic elements, the subtleties of which are lost sometimes on the hustle and bustle of a busy commuter train.  I cannot possibly feel the full, subtle range of emotion the genre brings out in one while also trying to deal with the B.O. of a fellow passenger and the underlying worry I might get too sucked in and miss my stop. The same goes with Gothic style films. I feel my most comfortable watching them at night, after everyone has gone to sleep (I share the house with three other adults and two bouncy cats so especially on weekends, night-time is the only quiet spell around) This is why, watching this understated little number based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier on a Sunday afternoon may have been a mistake. The fact that it made me curl my toes and huddle under the blanket clutching my laptop towards the end is a testament to the strength of the film.

John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura Baxter’s (Julie Christie) lives are shattered when their young daughter Christine drowns while playing in a pool behind their house. The death shakes the young family to the core, as it would any family, but with time they find a way to move on. Their son is put in boarding school and the parents move to Venice for a short while as John has found work renovating an old church there. But just as their lives seem to be entering some form of normalcy a chance encounter with two rather eccentric old ladies changes everything. One of these two old ladies, two sisters to be precise, is blind. And she claims to be psychic. A psychic who has a rather eerie plethora of knowledge of Christine… She claims Christine has a message from beyond the grave for her parents. Laura is interesting but John, ever the sceptic, refuses to heed messages or read any kind of meaning other than the mundane to a series of bizarre events taking place all around him. His, is of course, the way of logic… But is logic the only explanation for things going on around us?

I think old horror films are honestly things we, the children of the 21^st century should re-visit more often. Horror films today rely far too much on jump-scares and CGI monsters I find. I mean sure, I’m in the mood for a good scare from time to time. But these days we seem to have very little time for the “creepy”. We no longer seem to have time to be “creeped out” slowly –we want it all, at once, full sensory load, NOW. I blame the sheer amount of jump-scares in horror. I also believe the pervasion of CGI and visual effects absolutely EVERYWHERE. Now I’m not saying they shouldn’t be used by the bucket-load when necessary. I personally am looking forward to watching The Desolation of Smaug in 3D. But I’m very sad that “non-CGI” is being pushed further and further into the back of the closet. One of the solutions if, like me, you are nostalgic for this era is to watch older films like this little 1970’s number. Like I said in the intro, you may want to wait for an evening when you are not too hyper to watch it. Let it wash over you and slowly draw you in; this, people, is basically a good old chills down your spine type tale. You gotta give the chills time to settle in. iYou may be a bit disoriented by all the intercutting images at first. It is quite atmospheric when you get “in” to the film, but I haven’t seen the technique used so frequently in one film for a while so I kept getting “snapped” out of the film, as it were – at least in the beginning. But don’t be sceptical. Give it a shot. ‘Cos being a doubter did John no good, I can tell you that much… 

AN ASSAULT ON THE SENSES AND IMAGINATION : " SUSPIRIA"

Now, from one kind of old-fashioned to a totally different kind. Because, you know what the other thing you think when you watch old horror films is. I mean, at least, I know what I think: wow. Look at what used to pass for special effects back in the day!  How better to explore this phenomenon than a good old bit of grindhouse… Now, this is not a genre that generally appeals to all. OTT special effects, loud female screams, monsters living or dead… You get the picture. But when you have a master director like Dario Argento at the helm, you know there’s going to be something to it. The end result? This rather intriguing little number that will definitely etch itself onto your memory for the right reasons or the wrong ones…

Suspiria is the story of Suzy Banion (Jessica Harper), an American ballet student who has come to a European ballet academy to continue her studies. On the surface  of it, it seems like what it says on the tin : an old, well established ballet academy set in a picturesque European town in the middle of the woods. However, a few grisly murders and a few hints of the supernatural later, Suzy begins to slowly become convinced that there is something a lot more sinister than the art of ballet being practiced in this school… But can Suzy get to heart of the sinister secrets housed in the school? And if she does, will the school let her survive to tell the tale?

Now, you have to have a love of all things nostalgic to enjoy grindhouse. And, most importantly, you have to be able to suspend disbelief completely and play “let’s pretend”. Did you do that as a child? Of course you did. The question is, did you ever stop? If, like me, you never did quite, you’ll probably enjoy grindhouse.

Because I mean, let’s face it. All the clichés of horror films rolled into one. We have a frail and beautiful American heroine in a “strange” European country. She arrives at a ballet academy which, for God knows what reason, is in the middle of a dark forest. Oh, and the night she arrives, there is a terrible storm and it’s pouring with rain – obviously. But then again,  I don’t think I’ll knock the opening sequence too  much, now I come to think about it… There is a sequence in there that has a very well deserved place in cinematic history. I won’t give too much away – you need to not see it coming to have the full effect.

So, if Don’t look now was understated and creepy, Suspiria is the mirror opposite. It is a complete sensory load on the senses be it in terms of colour, music (the theme tune is still  a little bit stuck in my head) and effects…  And it’s not just the technical side of it, everything, EVERYTHING about this film is completely OTT. But then again, I’m lucky you see. Like a lot of creative people I have a bit of a fondness for all things truly dramatic. Yes of course there will be times you cannot help giggling at the special effects of the day (1977 to be precise) but hey… I’m willing to bet good money you will have to make a conscious effort not to get sucked into the film in the end. It just goes to show that good direction sometimes transcends details like special effects. And Suspiria is deliciously spine tingly, with some very, very tense moments – even by 21^st century standards – with awesome atmos… I enjoyed the film on so many levels, be it visually (I just want to re-iterate how stunning the colours in this film are), cinematically or simply as a chilling yarn told around the camp fire. You’ll love it. Oh and if you watch it in the dead of night like me, do leave a light on in the hall. I had to creep along a dark hallway to the stairs to go up to brush my teeth. And what with the bannisters creaking and the cats running about… Let’s just say it wasn’t a pleasant experience directly post-Suspiria… ;) 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF OUTER SPACE...

So... Ok here's what happened.

I had a totally different update planned for this week. Now don't worry, the update is "still there", waiting to be updated. In fact, like I said in a post a little further down it WILL be updated this weekend (Sunday evening GMT) - the theme is horror by the way, not something you see here often. Dario Argento is involved too. There. That's enough teasers. Back to the matter in hand - ahem.

Anyway, yes, so I had something totally different planned for this week. Then I watched Gravity. I had A LOT to say on the matter like most of the blogosphere. So much so that I produced the monster of a blog entry you can see below. It's about the length of two posts. If I were cheeky enough, I WOULD call it two posts in one. Well it is word-count wise. But I see why you'd argue it's a grey area...

So there you go peeps. Check out what your resident blogger thinks of Gravity and check back on Sunday to see what other horrors I have in store for you. Hopefully this should mark the beginning of our return to regular weekend updates.

happy viewing!
Essie

IN SPACE NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU FALL... "GRAVITY"

Truth be told, when there is this much hype about a film, I worry. I mean, it’s hard to explain but you get caught up in the “aura” of the film and then… Well then you expect it to be life changing. Utterly “the ground moved” amazing. I mean I do. But then… Then it falls short and you get disproportionally upset with the whole affair. That’s why I was curious but cautious as I went to see Gravity the other night – in 3D I might add. I hadn’t actually revved myself up not to like it but I was trying to get my expectations down… And you know… My expectations can go all over the shop sometimes and that isn’t much good for anyone. I am very pleased to report however, that in a lot of ways Gravity exceeded my expectations… I needn’t have worried. Not in  this case. However… There were bits that disappointed me a bit. I will try and explain what I mean further down but first the story. You know, just in case you’ve been living under a stone or something…

Gravity is the story of Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) who unexpectedly find themselves drifting in outer space, tethered to each other but virtually nothing else. Dr Stone is just a mission specialist; a medical doctor who is specifically working on this mission and this one only – in other words “a civilian”. Kowalski however, is a veteran of “infinity and beyond”. His buoyant spirits and knowhow do indeed carry them both for a while but ultimately, is it enough? I don’t want to tap into my ‘80s soul and say “in space no one can hear you scream” – but they can’t you know… No air…

Ahem. Moving swiftly on, I want to give you one word: the photography. Oh. My. God. I have never seen anything like it, Cuaron proves himself a true technical master in this one.  And rest assured, I mean it in more ways than one. First of all, the shots of space are stunning. There is a very sharp reminder in the opening sequence alone that we are a very, very small, insignificant part of the universe despite our rather warped view that we are the centre of it. And philosophical messages aside, Cuaron uses his camera to suck you right into the film. I was reading on Twitter that one person felt as if they had “just got back from a space mission themselves” after seeing that film. I can relate. Cuaron uses the psychology of video games as much as anything else to make us feel we are personally “part of the action”. He does this by using a lot of POV shots, straight from the eyes of our main protagonist Ryan Stone. I was particularly fascinated by the fact that there are a LOT of these POV shots, but they do not jar at all- possibly because, even if we don’t all play “first person shooter” type games, we are a lot more used to the concept. I remember that  back in the ‘50s or ‘60s – if memory serves – one director tried making an entire film from the POV of the protagonist – it was a dismal failure. But these days, what with genres like “found footage” type horror films, more artistic endeavours like Sokhourov’s Russian Ark our tolerance for it seems to have grown considerably. The ever present video games- genres like first person shooters etc – also help to up our tolerance. All in all, the POV shots actually “make” the film as opposed to breaking it, I found. You slip directly into the characters skin and it gives the adrenaline that already pervades the film that little bit of a push…

Of course herein lies the need for a good balance. Because you can’t really rely on POV shots alone to get the audience to “bond” with a character – they need backstories. They need to be real. Kowalski is a typical “good old boy” with lots of stories to tell and an almost insatiable appetite for telling and re-telling these stories – we get to know about him quite quickly. Ryan Stone is a bit trickier. (This is not technically a spoiler but you may want to look away at this point if you’re really allergic to them skip to the next paragraph)But  she quickly wins us over when we find out she is still trying to cope with the loss of her four year-old daughter who died, of all things, from falling and banging her head in the playground. I loved that touch – not something complicated like “childhood leukemia” just “one of those things”, tragic in its simplicity and minimalism... Now, I have nothing against them having backstories – they’re pretty much essential. But there comes a point in the film when Ryan gives up and decided that she might as well prepare to die saying she “hopes to see her daughter soon”.  Then, of course, she decides to fight for her life (that one last push that will naturally prove to save her life ultimately) and in the course of that decision she pretty much seems to get over the death of her daughter and land on earth healed and ready to start anew – complete with a “conquering heroine” shot of her from round about her ankles making her look like a leviathan at the end.

Humm… I guess what I’m saying is (welcome back if you skipped that paragraph) that backstories and character development aren’t Gravity’s strong points. But that’s kinda ok you see, because you don’t really go to Gravity for character development. Or I mean, you shouldn’t.  You should see the film either in 3D or in IMAX and really get immersed in the action – and amazed at the beauty of the photography. It’s fascinating really, because I really wonder if this film would be as successful without technology such as IMAX, 3D, HD and all the other “visual enhancements”. It would certainly be possible. It might even be good. It would, however, simply be an action movie. Even the POV shots wouldn’t have been enough to make the film so breath-takingly exciting.  So this, in my view, is a true 21^st Century film- if only in the sense that it wouldn’t essentially be what it is today without 21^st century technology. I will also have to argue that it is a distant cousin of AVATAR in the sense that while it is perfectly possible to enjoy it in 2D it’s just… Not the same.

My gut reaction when I finished watching AVATAR was “this is not a film”. It’s something between a film and a fair-ground ride (don’t get me wrong, this is not meant as an insult. My argument is that it is a completely different, far more “participatory” genre than a film and this is neither good nor bad. Just different). Now,  I have to admit GRAVITY is not so simplistic. Calling it “something like a fair-ground ride would be very unfair to Cuaron whose photography is a true work of art…  They are, however, quite closely related. The fact that you are (at least I was, and so were others from what I gather) breathless, dazed and a bit confused when you exit the cinema is a testament to this fact.

So we can conclude that Gravity is a technical triumph. Just possibly not a “philosophical” triumph. That said, does every film need to be? No. Is it well worth your money to go and see it -, and heck, shell out a bit of extra for the 3D? Yes. Enough said. Now go book your ticket ;)  

ESSIE SPEAKS OF STARS AND BRIGHT LIGHTS

Well hello there.

I know. My timekeeping has become atrocious. Like, even more than usual. I hope you still keep one eye on the blog and check back, secure in the knowledge that your rather disorganised blogger will definitely update her blog. She's just not always sure when. But hey, let's not dwell on the negative, shall we? Updates are here, and my oh my they are a bright, star-spangled bunch...

Today's films have one thing in common. A plethora of a-list celebrities. Now you make think this is a good thing and you may not - I discuss my opinion on the matter a little further down. But the two films certainly use the phenomenon to very different effects. See what you make of them...

And oh, hey : you will remember to scroll down to the bottom of the page and watch the trailers right? Ok, I mean, they're there if you want them. Just saying. And by the way, if you want to follow me on Twitter (and why not, right?) I'm at @Essie_Tweets :)

happy viewing,
Essie

THE CLOSER YOU LOOK, THE LESS YOU SEE : "NOW YOU SEE ME"

For my first trick tonight, I will make two hours of your life disappear J Wow, ok, that came out a tad bit darker than I intended it to. But you know what I mean. You sit down to watch a film, what with the dazzling special effects (yes, I know, I do moan about special effects a lot but you can’t beat them when they’re well used), glamorous actors and a whirlwind of a storyline, you’ll be walking out of the cinema scratching your head before you became fully conscious of ever sitting down.

It all starts, you see, with four illusionists (Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelsson and David Franco). They have banded together to form a troupe entitled “The Four Horsemen” – and for their tour around Las Vegas they use “magic” to “rob banks”. An amusing gimmick and nothing more, right? Well, possibly not. As the banks the four horsemen say they are robbing on stage in front of a live audience indeed start turning up empty the next morning, the police force (headed by Mark Ruffalo) is faced with the very same perplexing question we are all faced with at the end of magic shows (I know I’m supposed to call them mentalists or illusionists or whatever. For me, they will always ever be magicians. Sorry J ) : “How the heck did they do that?”  But with even one of the most famous “illusionist de-maskers” (Morgan Freeman) baffled by the turn of events and the possibility of an agenda that stretches way beyond just the cash… Is this simply a rather glamorous set of heists? Or is there actually something a lot bigger at stake?

Ok, quick question: Did you like the Ocean’s franchise? You did? Then jump right on the bandwagon my friends! This is most definitely one for you! And I mean, don’t get me wrong, I loved the Ocean’s films. But this is a tad bit better methinks. First of all, I like the fact that it doesn’t rely so much on star power. I mean don’t get me wrong there are one heck of a lot of stars in this one too. There are even a few I couldn’t get into the blurb like Michael Cane for example. But there are not 15 of them.  Which, in my view is a good thing. I mean 15 a-list celebrities are all very well and good – in fact in some cases but it always makes me a tad nervous about the rest of the film. You know, the directing, the storyline, the effects… I know it’s a tad unfair, but I always get the nagging question “what are they trying to hide?” – you know. If they’re throwing that much talent at it, my head reasons, there must be something going not quite right with it. Now this little number has a significant amount of star talent in the mix, you can ask what it’s trying to hide until you are blue in the face; I am pretty darn confident you won’t get it.

This is not simply because there is nothing that is obviously wrong with it; I have to say that this was one of the best heist  /stroylines I have seen in a very long time. I know that technology and development allows us to design visual effects gimmicks that are more intricate than ever before, but this was truly spectacular. And all the visuals – be it the effects all the stars – definitely do not retract from a complicated plotline you will literally “not see coming” until the very end. But don’t worry. There is a an actual “explanation”  bit very neatly inserted into the film so I can guarantee you won’t get completely lost.  This is actually my favourite kind of plot. I don’t like it when I can see films “coming” a mile away. And my “eyesight” is pretty darn good what with one thing and another  (mainly the sheer volume of films I have watched in my life).

If I were to say one negative thing about the film, it might be that it suffers from a slight lack of character development. I’m not going to go as far as saying they are “stock characters” they definitely are not, but… I mean we could, in an ideal world, get to know them a tad bit better. But then again, that is not what the movie is about. The movie is about the show – that’s why this is what the movie concentrates on. Which is fair enough, I think.

So next time you have a few hours to spare, feel free to spare it on this little number. You will not regret it – this much I promise you.