Category: REVIEWS

By Patrick King.

The Devil Lives Here is a Brazilian horror film first released in 2015 and now out on DVD and VOD from Artsploitation Films. It’s directed by Rodrigo Gasparini and Dante Vescio, who previously collaborated on the short film “M is for Mailbox,” which was featured on ABCs of Death 2.5.  Written by Rafael Baliú, who also contributed to the story along with Guilherme Aranha and M.M. Izidoro, The Devil Lives Here is part possession movie, part zombie movie, and part good old-fashioned slasher flick.

We begin with four sexy twenty-somethings, two guys, two girls, engaging in suggestive eroticism, drinking, and satanic rituals. Not a bad, if typical, start to a modern horror flick. All this after a brief introduction to the evil Honey Baron, a nineteenth century plantation owner who tortured his slaves and had a child by one of them. It’s not clear at first how this story intersects with the story of the kids hanging out and drinking at a rural farmhouse or how it intersects with two brothers who perform a ritual to lift a zombie from its resting place but all the storylines eventually converge at the farmhouse. It used to be the Honey Baron’s place and, after his slaves rebelled and killed him and his newborn baby, their souls are still trapped in the basement.

Not a bad start, eh? Well, the setup unravels into some weird places and the story doesn’t end up making too much sense or being internally consistent as the movie rolls on, but that’s not why this movie is so gripping. Gasparini and Vescio are visually-engaging directors and have an ability to ramp up the tension that’s on par with Sam Rami’s frenetic pace in his Evil Dead movies. Because of this, a loose plot thread or two can be forgiven.

Certainly, the story gets bogged down in the details and could have used more of a sense of ambiguity, but that’s not a mortal sin in this case. It is interesting, this idea of two supernatural factions pitted against one another and it’s certainly a rare thing indeed when you question whether it might actually be ethical to torture a newborn baby’s soul for eternity. Under normal circumstances, this would be evil, no matter the sins of the father, but what if the kid really is the son of Satan and could bring about the apocalypse? It’s still a baby being tortured, but maybe the whole Antichrist thing might give you pause. Well. Probably one of the weirdest plot choices was to put a sex scene in the middle of all the carnage. It’s pure plot device, and maybe a way to get a little skin into the movie. I mean, I get it, the baby has to have a mother to assume an earthly form, but still…young lust, I guess. Well, so it goes.

Cinematographer Kaue Zilli bathes the movie in yellows, reds, greens and greys. Very drab and a bit nauseating, which is a good choice in a film which opens with a slave being forced by his master to drink a jar of honey. We’re nauseous because the characters are nauseated.

Gasparini and Vescio go a little heavy on the Dutch angles at times, but they’re used correctly, at least, as a way of ramping up the nauseousness, dread, and tension. After a slowish first twenty minutes to get things set up, the pace turns frenetic and doesn’t let up until the last few minutes.

The makeup’s okay, as long as the camera doesn’t stay too focused on the zombies. Reminded me of someone’s very good amateur Halloween makeup. Works well enough, though.

Though The Devil Lives Here gets a bit too heavy into the mythology it creates and the rules change to suit the forward-momentum of the plot, the atmosphere and tension makes up for it. If nothing else, it shows a lot of potential and it certainly has me interested in seeing what Gasparini and Vescio do next.

Unrepentant murderer Callum Lynch is extracted from death row by a shady organisation know as the Templars in order for their research team to extract information from his ancestor via genetic memories. Callum must relive the memories of Aguilar de Nerha of 15^th Century Spain to uncover an artefact coveted by The Templars, which in turn will bring about the subservience of mankind.

I will begin by saying that I’ve been a fan of the Assassin’s Creed video games since the late 00s. This decade old franchise has seen 10+ console titles as well as numerous comics, novels and mobile games. As is always the case with such gargantuan properties, the overall plot is a convoluted mess but the core gameplay mechanics and interesting, historical settings are what keep gamers returning to the wellspring yearly for each new title.

Pretty much the least enjoyable aspect of the games are the segments set in present day and sure enough, Justin Kurzel and the screenwriters decided to set around 70% of the film adaptation among the muted greyscale of a contemporary setting. An Assassin’s Creed game set mostly during The Spanish Inquisition’s religious purge would’ve been amazing but here we get around a third of the movie set within that timeframe with pofaced, underdeveloped characters and the muddiest, smokiest, dingiest of colour palettes hiding the digital seams.

This movie is ugly as sin, which is completely inexcusable considering the costume and set design, the visual effects and practical stuntwork. There’s one 1490s-set chase in particular that whips back and forth so quickly that I gave up trying to make any sense of it. I’m sure the fight choreography was amazing but the Jason Bournelike aesthetic placed the shaky camera in a position that meant you couldn’t see half of the action.

The audience’s investment is placed firmly in the modern day scenes but besides an interesting relationship between Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard there’s nobody here to grab on to. Michael Fassbender’s given nothing to work with and flits between Neo’esque chosen one and cr-cr-crazy inmate with about as much enthusiasm as somebody washing the dishes. Brendan Gleeson, Michael K. Williams and Charlotte Rampling are just kinda “there” and Denis Ménochet threatens to give a dynamic performance for a brief moment before reverting to sub-standard Bond henchman.

Watching Duncan Jones’ sort-of-ok-ish Warcraft last year I had no investment in the world but still went along for the ride. The visuals were spectacular, the pacing had some energy to it and I think I managed to keep up with the ridiculous place and character names. There were moments when I was certain I was missing little in-jokes and nods for ardent fans but that didn’t bother me as the silly fantasy aspect was entertaining enough. The most baffling aspect of Assassin’s Creed was the complete lack of fan service. While I certainly wouldn’t want the kind of cameos or easter eggs that pull the audience out of the picture, I wouldn’t have minded a little something-something to keep me occupied during the painfully boring bits. Besides the basic science fiction premise there was little here to connect this to the universe the film is supposedly set in.

Now, I wanted to enjoy Assassin’s Creed for the fun, silliness of the premise. In spite of my enjoyment of the games I went in with reasonably low expectations having read some not-so-merciful reviews. Even with my expectations buried somewhere lower than an even numbered Resident Evil sequel I was still disappointed. The colour palette is dull, some of the action is shot and edited in a bafflingly spasmodic way and the film feels like an apologetic effort for the general public that manages to strip away the kinetic swashbuckle and fantastical science fiction of the games.

You know… the fun bits.

One of the film’s saving graces is Jed Kurzel’s score, which is unnecessarily brilliant. It contains elements of Craig Armstrong by way of (oldschool British electronic outfit) Hybrid. The score manages to punctuate and accentuate the onscreen action, elevating some of the better scenes and propping up the less engaging.

It’s not all doom and gloom. There’s a chase scene on horses which looks great. There’s a scene involving a fiery escape which is great until it becomes incomprehensible. The visual effects while Fassbender’s Callum/Aguillar is in the Animus are interesting and the final reel escalates toward a fitting conclusion without neatly resolving all of the plot threads.

Assassin’s Creed feels like a missed opportunity. It’s far too serious for it’s own good and makes no attempt to transpose the action-packed vibrancy of the games onto the big screen. This wasn’t the videogame adaptation saviour some of us were hoping for. Oddly enough, I feel like a Len Wiseman or Paul WS Anderson could’ve injected some frenetic fun into what is a flat, dull and ugly film.

Assassin’s Creed is out now.

Collecting a family member to identify a body is never a simple task; but in Leftovers, breaking news takes it from bad…to very much worse.

Leftovers is a a product of Angry Student Productions and Tofiq Rzayev, a talented young director and writer from Azerbaijan who’s been making exciting short films since 2011. Yet another example of Rzayev facing the things he fears through film, Leftovers is dark and traumatic, portraying a situation no sane person would want to encounter Unfortunately, short films require instant impact, with either a gripping story that takes you from the beginning or characters you can relate with instantly. For me, Leftovers had none of these. Unfortunately the acting was solid oak from the beginning and I couldn’t match any of the dialogue to the emotions on the characters faces. Perhaps this is a translation issue coupled with overly dramatic subtitles, but for me, I saw very little trauma on the faces of Kerza, Momar or Sancar.

The moral musings of the film, discussing hell, rape and wishing your pain on others was interesting and had great potential to really deliver something special. Yet, it came across more like a story written by a philosophy student whose intentions were as far from subtle as possible. It felt forced and unnecessary at times, with the actual story and events seemingly secondary to these philosophical discussions which ruined the feel of the piece and keeps the viewer distant and separate.

Leftovers had potential and though Rzayev’s talent for story telling is real, Leftovers is not the tale for me. Unfortunately I wouldn’t recommend giving this a look. Instead, I’d go check out The Girl in the Woods.

Leftovers is making the festival circuit in January, so at 12 minutes long, maybe you want to give it a go and prove me wrong! Or you can watch the short on the link below if you don’t feel like leaving the house!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bH5eNu6CVE

Why Him? harks back to the era of Hollywood films that examined the father daughter bond and traditional ideals of family values and marriage. Being 2016 the core of the film is still family values but the son-in-law to be is totally unsuitable self made tech millionaire and it is the father in law who is made to look like the insecure party in this comic tale.

The timing of the release of Why Him? is interesting the day after most of us have had enough of our families. James Franco is on fine form as the self made tech millionaire, Laird Mayhew, in love with Stephanie Fleming (Zoey Deutch), the daughter of Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston) who runs a printing business. A dinosaur in a modern world. This provides for most of the jokes some of which are laugh out loud funny. However, explore a little more and themes of live, belonging and acceptance are in abundance. There is definitely social commentary that runs through the film, a bit like a website pop up that says even though we are living in a superficial world what we all really want is to be loved and accepted. Is that true, is that what we are searching for – acceptance? Discuss. It is less like Father of the Bride and more reminiscent of the recent hit Bridesmaid. This is a comic, feel good movie with depth. The film works because of the outstanding performances by Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally, who play husband and wife in this film, their pairing is comic genius.

This is definitely the tonic to a family overloaded Christmas or something to watch with friends as you regale them with stories of rubbish presents and burnt Christmas puddings.

Why Him? is released on Boxing Day in cinemas across the UK.