film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: BRWC

  • Blu Ray Review: The Brood (1979)

    Blu Ray Review: The Brood (1979)

    Another David Croneberg cult classic gets High Definition treatment with 1979’s The Brood, a schlocky slasher (or in this case mallet-er) elevated over it’s competition with uniformly excellent performances and an early dose of Cronebergian Body Horror.

    At first glance The Brood may appear to be just another film in a long line of 70’s horror. In many ways it is, with a fair amount of schlock and a massively melodramatic score from a young Howard Shore (his first – he would later go on to score a little trilogy about Hobbits and Rings). It is notable however for ascending much of the trash of that era with an absorbing plot and solid acting throughout.

    Frank (Art Hindle) has a lot on his mind. His wife Nola (Samantha Eggar) is incarcerated at an institution run by Psychotherapist Hal Regan (the mighty Oliver Reed) for her disturbed behaviour. Regan practices the ridiculously named theory of ‘Psychoplasmics’ – whereby he role-plays with patients in order to free them of their disturbances through physical changes in their bodies.

    After Frank picks up his young daughter from a visit to her mother, he notices scratches and bruises and begins to investigate whether Nola is abusing their daughter, and soon he finds himself delving into a world of horror he hadn’t expected.

    And then the killer dwarves arrive.

    On the face of it, The Brood should be a load of nonsense, and in a less assured Director’s hands, may well have been. Cronenberg’s direction is solid and he effectively sets up several genuinely shocking scenes. By today’s standards, the violence may seem almost quaint, but the impact is still horrifying – particularly a scene which sees a room full of young children witness the murder of their teacher.

    Reed is as marvellous as you might expect – although seeing him role-play as a patients Mother may cause some unintended titters. The extras for the disk include an interview with crew members, the most memorable snippets revolve around Reed and his alcoholic antics during filming. Despite what he got up to in the evenings, he appears to have been on-form once the cameras started rolling.

    Twist endings are often an inevitability in horror, but The Brood keeps you guessing all the way through – with an unsettlingly odd conclusion that foreshadows some of Croneberg’s wilder body-horror ideas. It’s a worthy addition to his canon of macabre offerings – more so now that it’s available in HD.

  • What To Expect: Ghostbusters 3

    What To Expect: Ghostbusters 3

    By The Young Liar.

    Ghostbusters is a franchise that is very dear to me. When I was young, it was hard to understand how a film could be a comedy and horror at the same time. There was even some impressive sci-fi to it as well. It had everything a kid like me could enjoy. Bill Murray, and Dan Aykroyd were both well known to me as even early on I would watch reruns of Saturday Night Live. Harold Ramis was a bit of a nobody to me, though he seemed perfect for Egon. In fact, I was under the impression that he was pretty much exactly like Egon in real life. As some years passed and I became more of a movie geek, I discovered his other films. Egon became a favorite character and I became a fan of Harold Ramis.

    Between the Ghostbusters 1 & 2, the second is my favorite. That may surprise a lot of people as the second film wasn’t as popular, but in my opinion there was nothing wrong with it (except for the fact that Vigo scared the hell out of me) and it gets too much of a bad rep. It was a proper continuation of a film and had some pretty good scenes. I was afraid of the bathtub for weeks after seeing the scene in the film where Sigourney Weaver’s character tries to wash her child.

    There was also a quite successful and popular series, The Real Ghostbusters, which had a few incarnations. There were a few forgettable video games in the eighties and nineties, but everyone remembers the recent Ghostbusters: The Video Game. It brought back the almost the entire cast, and was actually pretty good for a game based on a movie. It acted as a third film, until of course a third film was actually going to be made.

    Ghostbusters 3 has been happening, not happening, happening, not happening, and happening so many times that some people don’t even believe it’ll ever be made. Aykroyd and Ramis have both been working on the film, and the script is being written by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg. In the last couple months, there has been very little news about the development of the project. Apparently, the script is done, and the only hold up is possibly one of the most important things needed for the film.

    That isn’t to say he is against being in the film. Bill Murray is known for being difficult to reach. He is known for being hard to reach when it comes to movie proposals, and takes his time with scripts. He has said that he’d like to be a ghost in the film, which doesn’t sound like an idea I’m fond of. I do think that the writers won’t let that come to be, as it might just bother a good portion of the fans. At the same time, Murray really seems uncomfortable with the idea of doing another film. We’ll have to wait and see.

    Shooting will also take place somewhere other than New York. It’d be sad not to see the familiar firehouse and the Ectomobile cruising the streets of New York City. It is understandable for the G.B. team to relocate as either they’ve made enough money to relocate to a better headquarters. There is also the possibility that, as told in the game (which could possibly be retconned by the third film) the Ghostbusters have started a franchise. That’s right, Ghostbusters Worldwide. They’re both interesting ideas, but I’m hoping that New York will play a part in some way.

    Sigourney Weaver is expected to return as her character Dana Barrett and Ivan Reitman will return to direct. Sadly, Rick Moranis will not be coming back. Moranis retired years ago, and while Louis Tully is a loved character that will be missed, I’m sure the story can do well without him. Ernie Hudson has said he has not been approached, but I’m guessing it’s because the film wasn’t a sure thing yet. In my opinion, if he is left out of the film, it’ll be a quite upsetting thing. His character has always been pushed to the background, having been left out of some of the posters of the films even though his character has been there at the defeat of each villain. Even worse, Ernie Hudson auditioned to voice his own character on the show but was passed on. I’d like to see Hudson get some more screen time and be essential to the team. Here’s hoping.

    What other possibilities are there for the new movie? A new ghostbusting team is a big one. In the abandoned Ghostbusters Go To Hell, the team was going to be comprised of younger actors. It’s more understandable now as many years have passed, but I want to see Ghostbusters 3 for The Ghostbusters. If the new team shares the same amount of screen time with the old team, I’ll be satisfied, but if they’re the main focus it will be disappointing unless they get some good actors for the roles. Various names have been flying around but I won’t say any as there hasn’t been any concrete news on the subject.

    So, to finish, here’s what I think Ghostbusters 3 needs to be a film that makes fans happy.

    Bill Murray stays alive, or at the very least if he dies, gets brought back to life. I also don’t want his role to be just a glorified cameo and hope he spends as much time on screen as the rest of the Ghostbusters.

    New York. There has to be some sort of connection to New York. You can’t have all that paranormal stuff happen in that city and then just move onto the next. The film doesn’t have to be totally based there though.

    Classic humor. Ghostbusters had a type of comedy that felt different. It was funny guys being scared. While the writers have both worked on the hilarious U.S. version of The Office, they also worked on Year One. Doesn’t sound good huh?

    The old equipment. Sure it’ll be nice to see ghostbusting equipment made with modern technology, but the old Ecto, the proton pack, and all the other gadgets and gear shouldn’t be pushed aside just for the sake of getting with the times.

    One Heck of a good villain. Vigo didn’t impress many, but he was still the main baddie. I’m hoping there will be a main villain in the third film. I don’t want there to be a town with monsters running amok unless there is an evil being behind the whole thing.

    The Ghostbusters song. Doubt they’ll leave that out. And maybe another montage with a ghostbustin’ themed song. It’s fun imagining which artist they could get for a song like that. I doubt they’ll have the Bobby Brown song in the film, but maybe it playing on a radio in the background or something like that would be fun.

    So, to all the Ghostbuster fans out there, let’s hope the movie at least gets made. It doesn’t seem like a Hollywood sequel cash in, which is why I want it to be good. After Live Free or Die Hard, Terminator Salvation, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I’m shuddering with you) I want a film that is made for the fans, not a quick buck.

    And yeah, Money makes us feel good, but it also makes Hollywood make crappy sequels.

  • A Field In England – Review

    A Field In England – Review

    Ben Wheatley is without the doubt one of the most exciting British film makers of his generation. Kill List and Sightseers are both bold, original and utterly fantastic films. Not since Shane Meadows has anyone grabbed the film industry by the balls and done it his own way. His latest, A Field in England, certainly continues his opus of disturbing Anglican tales borne in the shadow of Jeffrey Chaucer, but it might be a little on the mental side for the general public.

    Set during the British civil war, A Field in England begins in a smoke ridden field, (in England obviously) with a frantic Reece Shearsmith attempting to escape the battle and head back to civilisation. After meeting a pair of equally cowardly chaps, the trio are captured by Cutler (Ryan Pope) en route to a local ale house. Cutler then coaxes them into a venture across the plains to find AWOL alchemist O’Neil (Michael Smiley). After feasting on a soup of hallucinogenic mushrooms, the intoxicated foursome are forced into finding a hidden treasure within the countryside by the Alchemist. Proceedings then quickly descend into utter chaos and things get trippy…like, ridiculously, headache inducing trippy.

    image_01 (0.00.00.00)

    There is no doubt A Field in England will score 5 stars across the board when it comes to the critics, and to a certain degree I have to agree with such acclaim. It is after all wholly original, wonderfully acted and for all intents and purposes, a technically crafted marvel. I do however, think that this is one of those films that is strictly for the art college crowd. A film for the movie-goer who feels intellectually superior for enjoying a film of this ilk, who doesn’t buy coffee from well known chains, or succumb to products of Nestle for morality reasons. It’s a film where 20 minutes of nonsensical quick-cut editing, that will no doubt induce epileptic fits, is regarded as groundbreaking. Where a 5 minute slow motion sequence of Reece Shearsmith walking with a beleaguered and psychotic glare is hailed as pure genius merely because it’s “a bit creepy”. In reality, scenes like this are what you would find in the showcase of a fine art degree that make Joe Everyman stare in utter bemusement wondering why they didn’t just go to the local Odeon. I am a Joe Everyman, and while I do really enjoy a cerebral film, and the films of Ben Wheatley for that matter, A Field in England feels just a bit too much. While film making is of course an art form, and should often be treated as such, a 90 minute trip into the land of fiction should fundamentally embody enjoyment. Yes, it should challenge the mind, yes it should deliver the unknown, but all Wheatley does is relentlessly poke your frontal lobe repeatedly with a stick to distract you from the nonsense unfolding. To controversially lay it out bold as brass on the table; I just could not enjoy A Field in England. Despite it’s expert balance of dark comedy and even darker satanic undertones, more often than not, I was just bored and confused. I really wanted to love Wheatley’s latest, but for all the man’s originality and undoubted talent, it was a struggle to get on board for the duration.

    image_02 (0.00.01.09)

    Having said all that however, it does seem a bit redundant to even attempt to review this film. If there was ever a piece of cinema that will divide an audience to the extreme, this is it. After receiving a highly publicised and unprecedented multimedia release on Friday, (it was released in cinemas, on DVD and Blu-Ray and broadcast on Film 4 simultaneously), the acclaim it garnered on social media was mixed to say the least. I was totally baffled to see it being lauded as “genius”, especially when that praise was often followed by “but I don’t know why”.

    Ben Wheatley is a talented man, he really is, but the work of an extremely talented person shouldn’t be automatically lauded as good. While its desaturated palette looks fantastic, and the foray into the English Civil War is an interesting one, it just too frequently becomes an incoherent and confusing head fuck. Its madness will ingrain itself into your psyche long after the credits have rolled, but when the questions posed outweigh the answers given, its hard to forgive A Field in England for essentially being a pretentious bore.

    Stars 2

  • Silent Cry: Review

    Silent Cry: Review

    Silent Cry is the unsung production by Julian Richards, director of Summer Scars and The Last Horror Movie. The film itself is a mixture of suspense and drama, a true crime thriller. Although circulation was mostly in Germany, it is soon to hit the shelves on August 20th, hopefully giving Silent Cry the notice it had originally intended for.

    The plot tells the harrowing story of single mum Rachel (Emily Woof) who’s newborn dies shortly after giving birth. Unconvinced of the death, Rachel teams up with unlikely friend Daniel (Douglas Henshall). Their quest to find her son snowballs into a world of death and destruction as they attempt to overcome the relentless bad cop DS Dennis (Clive Russell). Richards states himself, the use of a tortured heroine allowed him to experiment with his inspiration from Hitchcock, as he delves the viewer into her nightmare of horror and suspense. There certainly is an air of desperation about Rachel’s search, particularly during the setting of the hazy red light district, almost making for a smutty scene of a crime novel.

    Although the movie has a bit of a slow start, the pace certainly picks up, particularly as DS Dennis’s web that he creates becomes increasingly deadly. The climatic scenes, although a little hyperbolised, hold some cut-throat violence. To go along with this Woof’s performance as Emily is truly believable and you will find yourself routing for both her and Daniel along the way. One of the saving graces for the film is the acting, as Richards has managed here to haul an all-star cast. As well as including Clive Russell, there are roles from Craig Kelly (Titanic), Kevin Whately (The English Patient) and a hilariously husky performance from Steve Sweeney (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels).

    Upon its earlier release Silent Cry received some positive feedback from the critics, with Jay Slater from Darkside describing the film as, “A brutal thriller with Sucker-punch violence.” It’s certainly thrilling and certainly brutal; one to look out for with its cry far from being silent.

  • Spanish Fly: An Acquired Taste

    By Harriet Mould

    Spanish Fly, a gently erotic comedy based on a German play, set in Spain starring English actors, was re-imagined for the big screen in 1976 by Bob Kellett. Responsible for quintessentially British comedies such as Futtocks End (1970) and The Chastity Belt (1971), Kellett leant starring roles to overwhelmingly English comic actors Lesley Phillips (Empire of the Sun and, as the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter films) and Terry-Thomas (The Abominable Dr. Phibes).

    The result of Kellet’s efforts is a film that is wholly Carry On in its style. The opening sequence introduces the audience to Spain through the eyes of a seventies British sightseer, as we follow back roads and costal routes from the bonnet of plush Bentley owned by one of our leading men, the eccentric gin and tonic obsessed expat Sir Percy de Courcy (Terry-Thomas) who, accompanied by a very British soundtrack and his right hand man, the obviously-named Perkins (Graham Armitage), is the first half of the largely uncomfortable storyline.

    Sir Percy, it quickly becomes apparent, has made a series of unsuccessful ventures that has left him with a lavish lifestyle that he is unable to afford. In an effort to improve his circumstances, Sir Percy buys a huge amount of very cheap local wine with a mind to re-sell it to his British countrymen, explaining that ‘with the right amount of snobbery attached, people will buy anything. Especially the English.’ Almost on queue, enter his hugely snobby schoolmate, tiredly impotent British businessman Mike Scott, who has found himself overseas accompanied by four beautiful models who are there to shoot his wife’s lingerie line. But of course.

    spanishfly

    In an effort to improve Sir Percy’s ‘cats piss’ wine, Perkins (effectively the comically smarter Watson to Percy’s bumbling Sherlock) attempts to improve the batch, accidentally polluting it with Spanish flies, famed for their aphrodisiac properties, and needless to say, model-based frivolities ensue. It is the type of comedy that, at the time of its release, was hugely daring, wildly amusing in its slapstick, naughty way, and a certain hit with the generations fed by the earlier hits of Spanish Fly’s leading men. However, unlike the free flowing wine, it is not a film that has aged well at all.

    Whilst once upon a time, Terry-Thomas’ gap-toothed grin and school-boyish Lesley Phillips’ slick hair might’ve been the source of much amusement to cinemagoers, to modern (okay, modern, young female) eyes, their scuttling after oddly besotted, personality-less beautiful young women is little more than disturbing and distasteful. It is quite clear to any generation that neither man is in their prime, and the age difference between the men and the (wholly one dimensional) models is just enough for the viewer, irrespective of their level of prudishness or liberalism, to identify the plot as seedy and misogynistic. As a viewer watching for the first time now, these veins of smarmy sexism swell to bursting point under the strain of modern acceptability. There is only so many times a person can dismiss under-skirt groping of utterly empty female leads as ‘of the time’. This may have been improved had the actors, particularly Thomas, been up to it. What were once twinkles of wickedness and almost attractive roguish behaviour has morphed into something far less amusing and far more sleepy and strained. It isn’t surprising to learn that this was one of Thomas’ final leading performances, and meanwhile, whilst his unhappy marriage might be convincing, the idea of Leslie Phillips’ character being entirely irresistible to all four women is perhaps the only truly laughable part of the film.

    Harsh? Well, perhaps. Watch it to get lost in quintessential British ‘rumpy-pumpy’ slapstick humour, if you love Carry On films, or have similar taste in cinema to the most stereotypical of grandpas (but for the love of god, don’t actually watch it with your grandpa. Far too much tits and arse. Speaking of which, perhaps that’s the best reason of all to give it a go). I personally, as a happenin’ and modern young thing, just couldn’t get into it at all.

    Perhaps I’m just too stuck in my ways.