The Thing on the Doorstep

Being a long time fan of H.P. Lovecraft I was hesitantly excited to discover a movie version of his story:

The Thing on the Doorstep (2014).

The story in a nutshell is this; Daniel Upton, a successful and level headed person narrates how his best friend Edward Derby, a sensitive and nervous writer, falls in love with and marries the mysterious Asenath Waite. Things turn sinister when Edward claims that his wife can possess his body and takes it to terrifying old occult places. Her power over him grows and it becomes a question whether Daniel can help his old friend before it is too late. There is of course much more to the story, but this description will suffice for now.

The movie tries to copy the original story as well as it can. It is set in modern days, which some have criticized it for, but I don't think it matters at all. Modern technology has no bearing on the horror The Thing on the Doorstep contains. They have used all the correct names, which is nice, but for some reason they decided that Daniel had to have a wife. She does little but remark on how Edward really needs to grow up and how annoying he is as well as snoop around where she really shouldn't. They have also added a couple of other characters in order to give more backstory which is okay as it doesn't harm the story too much.

What does harm the story is the complete lack of a budget. The Thing on the Doorstep is one of Lovecraft's stories that don't have any huge squiggly monsters so you can absolutely save some money there, but using cheap CGI for gunshots looks bad, really bad. Likewise, the actual thing on the doorstep itself was also bad CGI instead of even a simple makeup job which would have been so much better. There is nothing wrong with being low budget, but you have to work within your means, and sometimes this isn't easy. For some reason, most scenes are lit in a weird yellow-green light that made no sense. Such an effect used sparingly in specific flashbacks can work, but over half the movie is lit this way.

Most of the actors were pretty good. This isn't some sexy teenagers meet something scary, but actual adults, and they did their best, which I appreciate. My one exception is Rob Dalton (Edward Derby), who look like he could barely hold himself from laughing through half the movie. He also did nothing to show why Daniel would be his friend, he comes across as completely unlikable and that is pretty unforgivable. The friendship between Daniel and Edward is the central core that makes the story work in the first place, and sadly it fails here.

Overall, the biggest failure is that the movie isn't scary, it isn't even tense. I wouldn't even write about it but for one thing: they really tried. The passion does shine through and there are scenes that are pretty good, although those are few and far between. Is that enough though?

So, do I recommend this movie? No, not really. Lovecraft fanatics who have to see every movie adaption out there could enjoy it, there are certainly worse works out there, but casual horror fans should give this one a miss. I still appreciate that they did what I assume was their best, but sometimes trying your best isn't enough.

That is that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

Enemy at the Gates

I was in the mood for a war movie so I watched,

Enemy at the Gates (2001).

This movie is set in the Battle of Stalingrad and follows a young soldier turned sniper, Vassili (Jude Law) as he goes from a nobody to a heroic figure thanks to the propaganda created by his friend Commissar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes). Soon enough the Germans send their top sniper Major König (Ed Harris) to hunt him down in the torn apart ruins of the industrial city.

That is the story in a nutshell. We also have Rachel Weisz as Tania Chernova, Bob Hoskins as Khrushchev and Ron Perlman as Koulikov. Enemy at the Gates is directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud who also directed amongst others The Name of the Rose and Seven Years in Tibet.

First off I want to point out that the movie does many things that are not true. In the beginning, the Soviet troops are sent in to fight, but only every other man gets a rifle. This never happened. Ammunition could be incredibly scarce, but they never sent their troops into battle without weapons. There are other things like bombers flying way to low to the ground, the fact that it is not winter in the movie, but the real Battle of Stalingrad was blanketed in an unusually cruel and hard winter. There is also apparently no German records of a Major König, though it is proven that Vassili (who was real) did kill several highly skilled German snipers.

There are many errors like that throughout the movie, yet it doesn't really matter that much. Enemy at the Gates is two hours long and somehow it didn't feel that long. Annaud has done something special in this movie, and I'm not really sure what. Yes, the actors are really good and both Law and Harris were cast specifically because they are so good at acting with their eyes. The music is fine, and very reminiscent of other movie scores, but I can't say what and from where, but throughout the movie I had a strong feeling that I had heard the score before.

The movie itself is beautiful, which is weird to say about a war movie, but the way it was created is stunning. The ruins, the bombings, the masses of people all feel so real. Sure it is often panicking civilians or the dead and wounded, but the first thing a war movie needs to work is a sense of realism, and Enemy at the Gates has that in spades. The romance subplot between Law and Weisz is likewise realistic and quite sweet. Perhaps it is in the balance of the story that the genius lies? When the war part risks getting too overwhelming we get friendship or romance and when that starts to get a bit stale, we are back to the war.

My biggest complaint is the lack of actual sniping. The back and forth hunt between Vassili and König is incredibly tense and exciting, but there is a surprising lack of people actually getting shot. Being such a huge fan of the Sniper Elite games, I was hoping for more, but you get what you get. Although I'm 100% sure the developers of Sniper Elite has seen this movie several times since I found scenes and scenery that is incredibly close to scenery I have traversed in those games.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Fans of war movies that haven't seen it should see it, and even those who aren't that big on the genre could like it. Unlike other war movies I have written about, this movie has a solid arc, character development, and though I can't state that the movie has anything to really say, it has a story that makes sense. I won't go so far as to say Enemy at the Gates is a great movie, but it is solid and worth two hours.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

Portrait of God

This week I want to do something different. While idly browsing Reddit, I came across a brilliant horror short, and I really want to spread it around. It is made by Dylan Clark who seems to have a few more, but I haven't seen any beyond his Portrait of God.   

So enjoy this awesome short horror piece and hopefully you will join me again next time. Until then, have a great and safe week!

Dylan Clark's channel: https://www.youtube.com/@dylanclark/videos

The Stone Tape, Not a Stone's Tape.

After having been told about this movie I watched;

The Stone Tape (1972).

Written by Nigel Kneale, the creator of Professor Quartermass, and directed by Peter Sasdy who also directed one of my favorite Hammer Horror movies, Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), The Stone Tape is a British made for TV horror movie.

A research team in the field of electronic recordings moves into a renovated old mansion in order to really be able to concentrate and come up with the next great recording medium before the Japanese eat the entire market. The team's computer programmer, Jill Greeley (Jane Asher) encounters a ghost in a stone chamber and very soon almost all others in the team also witness the apparition. The team lead Peter Brock (Michael Bryant) realize that the ghost might actually be a recording of events past rather than an undead creature and the team gets very excited. But, since this is a horror movie, things inevitably go wrong, very wrong.

The Stone Tape is a typical old school British science fiction / horror product. It is well made, the actors are excellent, and the story is good. The effects are sadly a bit underwhelming, either due to financial reasons or time constraints. But for what it is, I have no real complaints.

The story is the main selling point. Like with his other creation, Quartermass, Kneale does good work blending science and supernatural. Unfortunately, they don't have time to really get to grips with the concept, and the movie feels pretty rushed. All the relevant parts of the story are told, nothing is left hanging, but the plot has room for so much more. This is one of those cases where a well produced mini-series would be perfect. The idea that ghosts and maybe other things can be recorded and played back by something in the environment is tantalizing, but we don't really get much here. It is incredibly refreshing that we don't waste half the movie with no one believing the initial witness with accusations and counter accusations flying back and forth. The Stone Tape does feel rushed but that also means that it doesn't waste time.

If I have to nitpick something, there is a subplot, if you can even call it that, with another team lead who researches futuristic washing machines. He wants to also move his team into the mansion, something Brock is vehemently against. This “subplot” really adds nothing to the movie, but it also doesn't take anything away. Also, The Stone Tape isn't really all that scary for a horror movie. It has good atmosphere, yes, but it is really tame for a horror movie.

Fun fact. The Stone Tape made a big impression on John Carpenter who used it as inspiration for his Prince of Darkness (1987). Kneale wasn't impressed by this homage and wrote in The Observer; “For the record I have had nothing to do with the film and I have not seen it. It sounds pretty bad. With an homage like this, one might say, who needs insults?” Chill, Kneale. A bit harsh there, don't you think?

So, do I recommend The Stone Tape? Yes, I think so. It could be a good intro for someone who wants to get into horror but isn't ready for anything too heavy. Beyond that, it is a slick little production with a fascinating story that does deserve more, but is also good for what it is.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week!