Kill List

I can't remember where I learned of this movie, but I watched:

Kill List (2011).

Married couple Jay (Neil Maskell) and Shel (MyAnna Buring) are having problems. They are low on money and are fighting constantly. Jay has been out of work for a while, but when his old army buddy Gal (Michael Smiley) comes to dinner with his girlfriend Fiona (Emma Fryer), things might change. The kicker is that Jay and Gal are hitmen. They kill people for money and Gal has a client lined up who pays well. Then things start getting weirder and weirder.

A movie about a couple of professional killers is always going to be somewhat dark, but Kill List is something else. At first it seems almost too realistic, with Jay's and Shel's arguments, but as soon as he and Gal go about their business the tone changes and things get really weird. It goes from unpleasantly realistic to horror and you don't know when it did that.

Kill List is a “along for the ride” kind of movie. The destination isn't that important, and in fact I guessed the ending. Don't expect explanations or for anything to really make sense, as I said, it is all about the journey.

The actors are good, I have seen many of them in other roles, and the cinematography is nice. The director, Ben Wheatley, does a really excellent job capturing the bleakness of the urban sprawl. Everything seems cheap and unpleasant. Houses that should be nice seem tawdry and fake. It is all painted with a pale, grim and disturbing brush. You get the feeling that nothing and nowhere is safe. It is almost as if everything is fake, that every location is staged and what you see is just a backdrop. And in a sense that is true, it is a movie not a documentary, but the feeling works within the movie itself. Had they screwed that up, whether it was intentional or not, the movie would have been awful. They do pull it off though.

The sound is a mixed bag. Rather than music, it's sound. Droning sound that drills into your head and makes you uncomfortable. Perfect for a movie like this, but the actors have a tendency to mumble a bit and there were times where I couldn't understand what was being said. Not that you watch a movie like Kill List for the dialogue, good as it is.

A word about gore. Most of Kill List isn't that bloody, and you do expect a bit of splatter in a movie called Kill List after all, and there is quite a bit of blood from time to time. But there is one scene in particular that is very graphic, so be warned.

So, do I recommend this movie? To horror fans I do! Kill List is never going to be considered great, but is is good. You think you have it figured out and then it takes a turn, and then another turn until you're spiraling towards the end. As mentioned, I did guess the ending, but that didn't matter as the road there was good enough. Non horror fans should find something else to watch. I wish I could say more about Kill List, but that would spoil everything, and I refuse to do that.

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

Past its prime?

I was in the mood for a classic, so I watched:

The Taking of Pelham OneTwo Three (1974).

Four heavily armed men, Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw), Mr. Green (Martin Balsam), Mr. Grey (Hector Elizondo and Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) hijack a New York subway train and demand one million dollars in one hour, otherwise they execute one hostage per minute. Against them are Transit Authority Police Lieutenant Garber (Walter Matthau) and basically every cop in New York City.

This movie was adapted from the bestselling novel of the same name by Morton Freegood writing under the name John Godey. The name Pelham One Two Three means that the train left the Pelham station at 1.23 pm.

Apparently this movie is a huge classic, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 98% and a 7.6 on IMDB. It is counted as one of “those” movies that are always rated extremely highly, and I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a fine movie. The actors are excellent, the story is good and the cinematography works. Apparently filming was a nightmare due to the dust, the noise and the ever present threat of being electrocuted by the third rail. Yes, the power to the third rail was turned off, but no one wanted to trust that it was really turned off... The crew looked like coal miners at the end of each day. Serious film making in other words.

The problem is, at least for me, that the movie doesn't give you a chance to care about the victims. Sure, they are innocent, but the movie spends more time getting to know the hijackers, than anyone else. We also spend a lot of time with the rail managers and the Transit Authority police. If the movie was right then being a loud, angry and cantankerous man was essential for running a subway. There is a lot of angry yelling in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, but I didn't care about the hostages one bit.

I guess that the movie was groundbreaking in '74, and there have been so many movies since that a lot of the magic has dissipated. I had a good time, sure, but I was also glad when the movie was over. I read famous critic Roger Ebert's review and the way he talked about The Taking of Pelham One Two Three makes me think my view is correct. It was a golden movie then, but it isn't now. Most of the surprises were pretty obvious, and the story was predictable enough once the film got going.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I guess so. As I said, there isn't really anything majorly wrong with The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, but like Bullitt (1968) the magic was there for those who saw it back in the day. It is absolutely worth watching, and I'm glad I did, just temper your expectations accordingly.

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

 

Informative Entertainment

When I play certain games like World of Warcraft, I like to have something on in the background to listen to if not directly watch. One such source is The Joe Rogan Experience.

I'm not a fan of Rogan as such, but he does love talking to interesting people and today I have two such episodes for you.

The first one is with rocker turned director Rob Zombie, in which they talk about horror movies, New York back in the day and much much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDLeJ5Rasuo

The second one is with British comedian Jimmy Carr. I have seen a lot of Jimmy's stand-up and he hosts a lot of comedy panel shows that I'm a fan of. This is the first time I've seen him just sit down and talk. They discuss comedy, history and a great deal more. Unfortunately I couldn't find the whole thing on Youtube so Dailymotion will have to do.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8oo4hj

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

 

  

The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Happy New Year!

We are starting the new year with a newer horror movie:

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016).

This movie title has been lurking at the corners of my awareness for quite a while, but when I saw a video about less popular horror movies that are well worth watching, and that video compared The Autopsy of Jane Doe with Oculus (2013) I had to watch it.

Oculus and The Autopsy of Jane Doe do not follow the same story but they both play with perception. This is not an easy thing to do in a movie, as it can easily devolve into massive plot holes and deus-ex-machina moments. I can happily say that both movies pass with flying colors.

This is the plot: Police respond to a multiple homicide in a private residence and in the basement they find the half buried body of a naked young woman. The sheriff rushes her to a morgue/crematorium run by the father and son team of Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin (Emile Hirsch), because "I can explain the other death's, I can't explain her". As soon as they start work on the young woman, the titular Jane Doe, weird stuff start happening and soon devolve into a nightmare for all involved. The more they literally dig into her, the weirder things get.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a small movie. Almost the entire film takes place in the underground morgue, but director André Øvredal (Trollhunter) uses the limited space very effectively. The effects are stellar and very gory. In fact, if you are even slightly sensitive, do not eat while watching this movie!

The actors are excellent and despite having mostly only two characters to work with, it never becomes an issue. The star in many ways though, is Olwen Catherine Kelly who plays the titular Jane Doe. She spends the entire movie lying absolutely motionless on the cold table, a role that might seem easy but is horrible to actually do. Only when it became unavoidable did they use prosthetics, so for every other scene, she lies there completely still.

It is also worth pointing out that despite all the gruesome horror, the most unsettling thing in the movie is the corpses sightless eyes staring at you.

The movie does offer up an explanation for why and how all the horror happens, but considering the central theme of twisted reality, I'm not sold that this explanation is true. It could be, but nothing says that it is.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, to all horror fans, absolutely! Non horror fans will not have a good time, but for us that like this stuff, The Autopsy of Jane Doe is an incredible film. A good example of how simple things can be when they are done right!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great start of 2024.

 

It is that time again...

The year is growing old and 2023 is ending. Most of us have lots to do and no matter how much time we think we have, it's never enough. 

All this can add up to a lot of stress, so I figured I'd give you something relaxing and fun to watch.

 

Very British Problems, Christmas edition is a collage of sorts starring some top names in British comedy sharing their Christmas traditions and tribulations. So, enjoy and I'll see you guys on the first day of 2024!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year and all that!

 

 

Southbound

Today we're talking about:

Southbound (2015).

Southbound is a horror anthology movie in five parts. I am forced to spoil it a little, but most spoilers are easily spotted and somewhat obvious.

Part 1 – The Way Out.

Two men, Mitch and Jack, are driving down the desert road, harrowed and bloody. Mitch sees these weird skeletal angels that have no lower bodies hovering in the desert. They stop at gas station to get cleaned up, but things take a startling turn which leads into:

Part 2 – Siren.

An all girl jazz band, The White Tights, are staying the night in the motel next to the above mentioned gas station. They are on the way to a gig, but their van breaks down. The girls are young, wild and honestly kind of stupid. “Why is it so hot?” one asks... in the desert. A creepy couple offers to put them up and help with the van, so they go with them. The couple dress and live as if it was the 60's and very soon things get pretty damn creepy. One girl, Sadie, runs away into:

Part 3 – The Accident.

Lucas is driving on the same road late at night while on the phone with his wife and accidentally hits Sadie. She's badly hurt and they are in the middle of nowhere. Lucas calls 911 but doesn't know where they are, so they can't send an ambulance. He is instructed to bring Sadie along to the nearest town. A town that happens to be abandoned. All the lights are on, but no one is there. He finds an equally abandoned clinic and fights to save her life. Ultimately he leaves and we run right into:

Part 4 – Jailbreak.

A scruffy old man, Danny, bursts into the local bar with a shotgun searching for his sister Jesse. The bartender takes him to where she is and he drags her with him despite her protests. Blood is shed as they get stuck in the desert, where she tells him they aren't allowed to be. Truths are told and Jesse drives back to town where she sees a pretty blonde girl, Jem, and we go to:

Part 5 – The Way In.

A married couple and their daughter Jem are celebrating that Jem is going to college. They go to their holiday home when they find masked and armed men outside. They call the police but soon the men break in and all hell breaks loose.

All in all, Southbound is a really cool little horror movie. It has an indie feel and dares to try some new things which delights an old horror hound like me. The actors are all good and the music is top notch. Southbound managed to surprise me once or twice even though a lot of obvious things and tropes happen as well. Accident is my favorite segment and it's genuinely one of the most stressful things I've seen on film. The movie is pretty gory at times, but that is to be expected in horror I suppose. There is a real sense of purgatory in this desert setting, and it seems like everything happens in one night. What I also appreciate is that the movie doesn't explain things. No exposition, no nothing. Just a strange and bloody ride that's Southbound.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, without a doubt. If you're not a horror fan, avoid it, but I assume you would anyway. I was really impressed with this movie about redemption and getting what you deserve.

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

 

Nighthawks

This week, I watched:

Nighthawks (1981).

Not to be confused with Nighthawks (1978) which is a movie about a gay man living a double life, or the famous painting by Edward Hopper, this action thriller stars Sylvester Stallone, Billy Dee Williams and Rutger Hauer.

We meet Deke DaSilva (Stallone) and Matthew Fox (Williams), two highly effective NYPD sergeants who work on the decoy squad. In other words, they pretend to be vulnerable targets to tempt muggers and then drop the hammer on said muggers. They're tough badasses who always get the job done.

Then we have Wulfgar (Hauer), a freelance terrorist whose brutal savagery has him on the outs with the major terror groups. He goes to New York to prove himself so that the terrorists will beg for his services. DaSilva and Fox are assigned to the new ATAC squad and given anti-terrorist training so inevitably the two sides are going to clash violently.

Nighthawks is an interesting movie. It balances the action with the thriller elements quite well, with neither dominating the film. It's not too long and doesn't overstay its welcome. The actors are all good, the scenery and the cinematography are excellent, so I don't have anything to complain about at all, but there is something missing, and I don't know what that is.

Stallone was still riding high on Rocky when he made Nighthawks, and according to himself he was an insufferable know it all. He did make one cut of the movie and the studio likewise did one as well, so some stuff was lost on the cutting room floor. I really can't say what it is that I'm missing, but whatever it is, it's what's holding this movie from being great.

The contrast between Stallone and Hauer is great. Stallone's dark intense gaze is perfectly matched by Hauer's ice blue eyes. DaSilva is driven but has his limits, while Wulfgar has no limits but is equally motivated. Williams is a great partner to Stallone, staying with him beat for beat without being overshadowed.

This is the first (but far from last) movie where Stallone plays a cop and he did all his own stunts, including climbing down from a hovering helicopter and being winched up to a cable car. All this despite being horribly afraid of heights.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes I do. Nighthawks is good, no doubt about it. Good but not great. Solid but missing an edge, something that makes you want to watch it again and again. That said, I do urge you to watch it. For being a Stallone action movie, Nighthawks is almost subdued, but in a good way. It's nothing like the action movie's he'd go on to make. It has a very realistic feel, with the grimy, dark New York streets and the high quality acting.

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