DVD REVIEW: The Innkeepers

Some Direct-to-DVD releases are best to be forgotten. The low-budget nastiness of the production values and the painful attempts at acting by the unknowns are the common reasons for this.

However, just occasionally, there is a direct-to-DVD release that leaves you wondering, why couldn't I see this in cinemas on the big screen? The Innkeepers left me thinking exactly that.

This is the third big release from Director/Writer, Ti West, behind the brilliant slow-burner, The House of the Devil and the shlocky, but fun Cabin Fever 2.


This time around, The Innkeepers follows two minimum wage hotel slackers, Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) who are working the last weekend at the Yankee Pedlar Inn before it closes for good. As the last few guests check in for the weekend, including the old actress, Leanne Reese-Jones (Kelly McGillis), an angry Mother (Alison Bartlett) and her young son (Jake Ryan) and a mysterious old man (George Riddle), the two slackers begin to hear strange things going on in the haunted hotel and decide to investigate themselves. Is the old tale of Madeline O'Malley (Brenda Cooney) really true?!

To get this review started, I have to say that if you are a fan of West's previous film, The House of the Devil, then you should love this one too. The two films follow the same basic formula - the protagonists spend the majority of the first and second act of the film exploring the creepy/haunted environment before the big pay-off at the end in the third act. The only main differences this time round being that The Innkeepers drops the 1970s style filming gimmick of The House of the Devil and also manages to pack in a few more scares/creepy moments.

I can understand what the majority of people's problem with this film will be... "Nothing happens!!" But the beauty of The Innkeepers lies within West's filming style and the time dedicated for us getting to know the two characters.

Firstly, the film is packed with beautiful long tracking shots down the hallways and creepy basements of the Yankee Pedlar Inn, largely reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's style for The Shining. Also, I have to praise the fact that West is never afraid to ratchet up the tension and focus on the build-up to the scare, rather than the fright of the scare itself. I liked the way that the film first started with one of the characters watching on of those internet screamer videos (you know the ones, where you stare long and hard at an empty room, before a gross face jumps up at the screen and it screams with the volume cranked up to maximum.) It's almost like West was saying, "This is what you are used to, but we're not going there!"

Secondly, the two main characters is where The Innkeepers really shines. We get to know the pair inside out - we understand Claire's scepticism around the hauntings of the Inn, we see Luke's commitment to getting his website up and running (about the haunted Inn) and finally, we see the little games they've devised that really show how long they've worked together (running up and trying to hit the help bell on the desk before the other can stop them.) It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's what a lot of good horror films are missing recently - it seems that they are so preoccupied with getting to the scares (and by scares, I mean jump scares rather than actual tension) that they can't stop and think about their characters for one moment.

Now, unfortunately The Innkeepers is not perfect, but it's only a minor gripe, and that is the development of the ghosts at the Inn and some of the secondary characters.

The legend of Madeline O'Malley - the bride, who was stood up on her wedding day, who then killed herself in the honeymoon suite at the Inn - seemed to be a bit underdeveloped. We are never truly told why she is still haunting the hallways of the Inn or what she really wants. The creepy old man who checks in late and demands a room on the third floor, seemed to be built up without any real pay-off as to who he was or why he acts the way he does (I don't want to give too much away here!) Or the Mother and her young son didn't really add much to the story at all, they were just there.

I just think that if the film spent half as much time developing the ghosts and the stories behind the Inn than it did to the two main characters, then it would have been perfect (and I don't say that to many films!)

So, if you like your horror films subtle, slow-burning, filled with tension and brilliantly developed characters, then The Innkeepers is definitely for you. However, if you are into being shocked every 10 seconds by a horror film, then go and stick on The Grudge or something else instead.

**** / *****

REVIEW: Chernobyl Diaries

Real events always seem to add an extra edge to a film. When the words, "Based on a True Story" are etched onto the screen, it just adds an extra sense of excitement - this could really have happened!

It appears now that films don't have to be based on true events to be exciting. Simply placing them in a "true" location is good enough (if not extremely offensive, as what seems to be the buzz on the internet at the moment about Chernobyl Diaries...)

The film centres around six tourists; the couple, Chris (Jesse McCartney) who was going to propose to his girlfriend, Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), mutual friend Amanda (Devin Kelley), Chris' brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) and backpacking couple, Michael (Nathan Phillips) and Zoe (Ingrid Bolso Berdal). They are led by tour guide, Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko) around the abandoned city of Pripyat, the town overlooked by the doomed Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. As they find out that their van has been tampered with, leaving them stranded, they soon realise that they are not alone...

To be honest, it's pretty standard horror fare right from the word go. As soon as the first montage of the couple's travelling trip comes up on screen, faint memories of the Hostel films will pass through your mind and the typical bland stereotypes of the characters also fits pretty well into the horror film cliches. And once the group's van gets tampered with, echoes on Texas Chainsaw Massacre will probably then whistle through your mind.

To say Chernobyl Diaries is uninspired would be an understatement. There is nothing new in this film whatsoever that makes it a remotely interesting horror film. What's more? It's extremely repetitive. To try and count the amount of times that the group follow a trail of blood when one of them goes missing or the amount of times that Paul shouts out his brother's name in vain when they are looking for him is almost impossible. Also, some of the decisions the characters make will certainly make your eyes roll. I know horror films are known for having stupid characters, but this film makes not attempt at trying to show us any reason for the character's rash decisions - no, they just decide to split up and go into a dark building because... that's what they decide to do.

Another thing that the film fails to do is build any real tension, which is a big turn-off for a horror film. The group have a geiger counter to warn them of any extremely high nuclear levels, yet when the counter goes off, they just ignore it and carry on the exact way they were going anyway. As the audience, we are not told what level the geiger counter has to get to before the group will be in danger, so we just hear the geiger counter go off and then see the characters ignore it. It's just a pointless part to the film.

Another way that the film lacked tension is that despite the group being picked off one-by-one, there never seemed to be any urgency about getting the hell out of there!! Or, what's more, they never attempt to try and hide from whatever is chasing them - they just stand out in the open, continually shout their friends names to try and find them and flash their torches every way they want to. The characters don't really seem scared by what's chasing them, so why should we?!

And finally, what's with trying to turn animals into villains?! Granted, the big 'bear scene' is a pretty good scare/surprise. I won't say anymore about that though... But, angry and aggressive wild dogs? Mutated, flesh-eating fish?! It was just a weak attempt at trying to add an extra dimension of tension in the film that didn't really work.

However, one way that the film does succeed is it's filming style. Imitating styles of recent films such as Silent House and touching on the style of the hand-held, first person style filming (ala. Paranormal Activity and The Last Exorcism), the film does have a heightened sense of us, as the audience, being there with them. While Silent House did it better, because the lack of editing cuts was a really immersive experience, Chernobyl Diaries does suffer sometimes with some too slick editing. A best example I could use to try and describe this would be when Amanda finds the abandoned school bus - instead of having a lingering camera shot outside before having it follow her in (so we don't see what's inside the bus straight away), the film instead decides to cut to a shot inside the bus, so we see what's inside and all tension is lost...

So, if you like your stereotypical horrors with cardboard cut-out characters doing stupid things, then Chernobyl Diaries will not disappoint. If you like your horror with a bit more of an edge to it, then I'd give this one a miss.

** / *****

REVIEW: Rock of Ages

The musical.
Start with some cheese. Then add some singing. Then show how the characters are in love. Add some more singing. Include a moral message behind the songs. Finish off with some more singing.

Like every other genre, it's easy to get it 'right', but even with all these ingredients being present in Rock of Ages, the film still feels a little bit half baked.

Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) is just a small town girl... who has decided to take the midnight train to... LA. She wants to make it big as a singer, but as soon as she makes it to the big city where the streets are paved with gold, she is mugged and falls helplessly into the arms of barman/band member, Drew Boley (Diego Boneta). She is given a job straight away at the struggling Bourbon club, where manager Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his assistant Lonny (Russell Brand) are organising the last ever gig with Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) and his band, Arsenal. However, Mayor Mike Whitmore (Bryan Cranston) and his wife, Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) are trying to clean up the streets of LA and the first place they are looking to close down is the Bourbon club.

It's a big plot, that contains a lot of characters. I'm sure it works on the stage (I'm trying to write this review having only seen the film, not the stage musical), as I'm sure the stage musical has a lot more time to dedicate to each characters, but a compact film (this one being around 2 hours long) cannot really do each character justice.

The first time you realise this is when the main protagonists, Sherrie and Drew first meet and within 10 minutes they are on their first date at the Hollywood sign (awwww!!) and are singing a song showing how much in love they are. Then, within half an hour they are falling out and breaking up. It's breakneck speed stuff!

However, where the film really suffers is with some of it's supporting characters. Coming out particularly badly are the Mayor, his Secretary (Celina Beach) who he is supposed to be having an affair with and the Rolling Stones reporter, Constance Sack (Malin Akerman) who interviews Stacee Jaxx and immediately becomes his lover/number 1 groupie. They are just given no time to flourish, develop as characters or let us know at least a little bit about them. The worst is the Mayor and his Secretary - he is cheating on his wife all the way through the film, we even feel a little bit sorry for the bitchy wife, Patricia, yet he and his Secretary never get their comeuppance. They aren't even found out to be cheating...

Having said that, the film does make some genius casting choices. The two leads played by Hough and Boneta are passable, Hough coming out on top of both of them. However, Cruise as Stacee Jaxx was brilliant in every scene that he was in. He treads the line very carefully between being the complete washed up rocker and likeable rogue very well and his affection for his new lover after the Rolling Stones interview makes him that even more likeable. Zeta-Jones as the feminist Conservative protestor is also the shining light in every scene that she is in. Sometimes she flexes her jazz hands a bit too much, but she never becomes irritating (which is a good thing, because it's her cheating husband who is the real Antagonist here...)

Having previously directed the last big musical to come from Hollywood, Hairspray, Director Adam Shankman handles the material he is given competently. I would like to see his future films focus more on character relationships and for him to try and get more of a raw emotion from his actors, but as fluffy romantic musicals that he has directed so far go, it's fair enough.

So, if you like musicals to be light on the drama but heavy on the cheese, Rock of Ages will be the film for you. It's the perfect waste of two hours on a rainy afternoon to try and brighten your day, just that little bit.

**½ / *****

REVIEW: Fast Girls

What makes a good sports film? How can you catch the enthusiasm and exhilaration of playing sports on the cinema screen? And most importantly, how do you make a sports film inspirational without having the predictable ending of the team eventually winning.

Unfortunately, Fast Girls fails to answer any of these questions well, as it quickly becomes a predictable, mundane film.

The film itself follows the two main protagonists, Shania Andrews (Lenora Crichlow) the ghetto girl who is down on her luck and Lisa Temple (Lily James) the upper-class, rich girl who has her own set of problems with her divorced parents. Both girls are at the top of their game in track running and both of them want to be the best. When they are forced to run as part of the same relay team by their coach, Tommy (Noel Clarke) they soon realise that they must learn to work with each other rather than against each other. Along the way, they will face love dilemmas with the team physiotherapist, Carl (Bradley James), face off against Lisa's over-powering Father, David Temple (Rupert Graves) and face multiple public humiliations in loosing exhibition games before they can finally band together as a team.

As you can guess, I'm not a major fan of Fast Girls. My main issue with the film is that it's very uninspiring. It takes the well-worn sports film genre and does nothing different to try and invigorate new life into it.

Is there the underdog who can't afford the professional training? Check.
Is there the overpowering parent who is living their sports dreams through their child? Check.
Is there the physiotherapist who can't compete anymore because of an injury but acts as an inspiration to the protagonist to keep going? Check.


It's just all very... blah. You know the twists and turns before they even happen. In fact, it becomes a bit boring. If you've seen, say... Bring It On (or any other cheesy, inspirational sports film), then this film is just the same, but with track runners (and less laughs). It even follows the same structure down to the successful race at the end - and no, I didn't just include a major spoiler then. If you didn't realise that they were eventually going to be successful as a team, then you really need to pay more attention in films...

I feel bad, because I feel like I should be supporting British filmmakers, but even the direction was quite bland. First time Director, Regan Hall's shining point in this film is the use of slow motion in the running races. It was the only point in the film where I felt any tension, even though it was written out who was going to win/lose in every race. Even when the script tries to inject some life and grit into the film, mainly through Shania's troubled home life, Hall still uses basic generic camera shots and style.

Now, maybe I should be easy on a first-time Director - it's his first feature film and he is still learning, but when something is staring you in the face (the gritty London council estates), it doesn't take much to try a bit of shaky-cam to add some grittiness to your filming style, does it?!

However, there is a saving grace to Fast Girls, and that is through the carting of Lenora Crichlow. I am a little bit of a fan (mainly through her turn in the TV show Being Human), but even though she is given little to work with, she still manages to shine through as the troubled protagonist, Shania. If anything, I would have liked to have seen more of her struggles with her Aunt and her troubled sister, Tara (Eastenders star, Tiana Benjamin.)

So, is Fast Girls worth seeing? If you like your sports films, then you can't go wrong because it methodically ticks every single box of the genre. If you are a general film-goer, like myself, then you may find it to teeter on the edge of boredom and the mundane.

** / *****

REVIEW: Ill Manors

How 'real' can a film truly be? Where does the line of reality end and the line of fiction really begin? A film can never be completely based on a true story, otherwise it would be boring, right?

Ill Manors is the directorial debut of Plan B (aka. Ben Drew) and is reportedly based on parts of real life experiences that the singer had when growing up in London. How much of it has been exaggerated upon is anyones guess, but it surely makes the story more intriguing.

The film follows a group of interconnected characters and shows how seemingly random events can bring them together in a cruel twist of fate. Aaron (Riz Ahmed) is a young drug dealer who is at odds with his hedonistic lifestyle. Ed (Ed Skrein) is Aaron's partner, who is completely hot-headed and has an extremely short temper. Michelle (Anouska Mond) is a crack-head who prostitutes herself for drugs. Katya (Natalie Press) is a pregnant Russian immigrant who prostitutes herself to men who like the company of pregnant ladies. Jake (Ryan de la Cruz Indiana) is a prepubescent teenager who tries to score drugs from Marcel (Nick Sager) but winds up being sucked into his gang. Kirby (Keith Coggins) is an ageing ex-con and drug dealer who is humiliated by his former dealer, Chris (Lee Allen)...

I could go on but I don't want to give too much away, as telling you how these characters are related would be giving away too much of the plot.

This opening to Ill Manors starts off promising enough, with a blazing soundtrack over some stunning visuals of the gritty urban London. Every time a new character is introduced, we are treated to a chorus of rap telling their backstory over a montage of their earlier life. Situations, such as drug dealing and prostitution are played out so realistically, that sometimes I found it hard to look at the screen. And it manages to do all of this while including some humour, mainly courtesy of Keith Coggin's character - forcing a rival drug dealer to strip off after dealing in his "turf" and getting some underage girls a "drinky-poos" being two prime examples.

The part of the film that I was particularly impressed with was that it doesn't promote violence and drug culture and being the 'right' answer. It does come across as a slight bit preachy, but it isn't as bad as films such as Harry Brown.

A nod towards this is when a character smokes cocaine for the first time and then claims, "See, it didn't kill me!" - that is before she is shot accidentally in the middle of a gang shooting.

However, the narrative soon starts to drag as the film has to split it's time over too many story lines happening at once. The film does throw some interesting curveballs along the way as we find out how certain characters interact, but it felt like a lot of the film could have been trimmed down to keep it going at a breakneck speed to keep it as interesting as the opening.

The direction from Ben Drew is competent, although some scenes felt a bit standard without anything making them pop out. As a writer, he needs to improve on fleshing out his characters and giving them all a character arc in order for us, as the audience, to truly care about them - especially when something tragic happens to them. Because of this, some characters feel left on the sidelines, particularly the supposed protagonist, Aaron, who ends up coming across as flat and frankly, quite boring.

So, overall Ill Manors is a fairly decent debut by the first-time director. The first half hour of the film really cements his writing and directing style within the gritty British crime drama mould, but there isn't a lot of substance under the style.

**½ / *****

REVIEW: Men In Black 3

Childhood memories of the cinema seem to be ripe for being pulled apart in recent years, as slews of remakes and sequels appear over the past decade.

Men In Black 3 however, is an example of how one of these can lead to fond memories and recollections of the original film, rather than completely tarnishing it's name.

The film reunites us with our old favourite men in black agents, J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) as they face yet another threat to mankind. This time it's Boris The Animal (Jemaine Clement) who has a lifelong grudge against Agent K for shooting off his arm. To get revenge, he travels back in time to 1969 to kill a young Agent K (Josh Brolin) and place Earth in danger from extinction. It's left to Agent J to also travel back in time and prevent all of this from happening, while getting to know the young Agent K in the process.

When the original Men in Black came out in 1997, it was a fresh comedy piece that played on the well-known alien stereotypes from the sci-fi genre. As always, it was the sequel Men In Black II, released in 2002, that lacked any originality or to add any further insight into the mythos of the characters or the alien agency that they work for. It was just there. Another film that shared the same name, but didn't really do much else.

That's where Men In Black 3 makes it's first improvement on the first sequel - it actually tries to add something to the backstory of it's two main characters. The whole notion of Agent J travelling back in time (a tricky thing to do, apparently) to save his partner's life is motivation enough to add some interesting character backstory. While the film does flounder in not really giving us enough as we would like about the characters, it's the final scene that really adds an unusual emotional punch in an otherwise zany comedy series.

The casting choices for Men In Black 3 is where the film really shines, and for a comedy film it's pretty important to get the characters right. Having Josh Brolin play the younger Agent K was sheer brilliance. Throughout the film I was convinced that they had dubbed Tommy Lee Jone's voice over the top of his and was shocked to find out from some internet research at home that it was all him.

The villain this time around was equally well-casted. Jemaine Clement lacked the certain twitchy bug-like characteristics of the original film's villain, Edgar (Vincent D'Onofrio), but Boris The Animal was a massive step up in terms of menace and character than Men In Black II's villain, Serleena (Lara Flynn Boyle). While I would have liked to have seen him use a bit more than just his trusty bug firing spikes to kill people and certainly some more of him in his original form (than just the fleeting shot that we get at the end of the film), the CGI used on his character was very well done. It was suitably icky and disgusting whenever his bug crawled out of the palm of his hand or when he gave his girlfriend (Nicole Scherzinger) the grossest French kiss I have seen in a long time!

While some of the jokes fall flat - Agent O's (Emma Thompson) "alien speak" speech was the lamest joke I've seen in a long time - many of the dull moments are forgiven, as Men In Black 3 is just the kind of feel-good film where you can just switch your brain off to. It's the alien that can see into the future, Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg) that provides most of this light-relief.

Overall, Men In Black 3 isn't an amazing film, but it's a step up from the previous instalment and also provides some fond memories of the original film. It's just a shame that Will Smith didn't sing another theme tune for this one...

*** / *****

REVIEW: Prometheus

What are the point of prequels? By definition alone, we know what is going to come after them, so how can they possibly throw any interesting curveballs when we know the outcome already?

Ridley Scott seems to have solved that problem by making Prometheus a prequel to Alien, that only shares "DNA", rather than an all out prequel.

I have a couple of issues with that, but overall, Scott has made another competent sci-fi film.

The film follows the crew of the spaceship, Prometheus after Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discovered clues to the origin of mankind on a far off distant planet. Funded by Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), the spaceship, led by the Captain, Jenek (Idris Elba) and monitored by Weyland employee Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), the crew soon realise that they must fight for their own lives as well as saving the lives of everyone back on Earth.

Firstly, Prometheus does start on familiar territory. A space crew awake from their cryo-sleep after years of travelling and then go out on the unfamiliar planet to explore the new surroundings. Eventually, the crew come across something not too friendly and they all start dying one-by-one until the secret of the planet is understood. Sounds a bit like Alien, right?!

Secondly, Prometheus is definitely set within the same universe as Alien, made obvious by such things as the Weyland Corporation, the 'Space Jockey' alien and the android David (Michael Fassbender), but you shouldn't go in expecting to see the familiar jet black aliens with acid blood...

Where Ridley Scott's films largely succeed is in the casting and Prometheus does not change any of that. Fassbender as the android, David really steals the show in many scenes that he is in, delicately treading the fine line between emotionless robot and compassionate crew member. Theron as the heartless Weyland employee, Meredith amply fulfils the antagonist role well as the selfless corporate monkey. It's just a shame that her character never really gets her full comeuppance. And finally, Rapace as Elizabeth plays her role brilliantly, on the one hand being the tough scientist but then acting childlike when her religion and beliefs are challenged.

The main thing I liked about Prometheus was the questions that it raises about humanity and the origins of where we have come from. It seems that the popularity of religion has definitely decreased in recent years. Not many people like to believe in an all-powerful God anymore. If we are to believe that something created us, we need to see it to believe it, right? That is Prometheus' main hook - the crew need to have evidence in order to believe that these "Engineers" (the name given to the alien race) created us. It also creates a neat little hook to the narrative when the android, David starts to question Elizabeth's belief in Christianity by questioning her Mother and Father's deaths.

However, despite having such a strong theme running throughout, Prometheus does suffer from trying to ask too many questions. This isn't so surprising, considering the writers of the film are Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, the latter being one of the writers of the TV series, Lost. Where did the "Engineers" come from? Why did they create us? Does David work for the crew or against them? (I'm trying to word that last question so I don't give anything away!)

If Prometheus spent as much of it's screen time answering these questions as well as asking them, then the film would have a much more satisfying conclusion. I know that a lot of people are claiming that this is the first film in a planned trilogy by Ridley Scott, but having a half-baked conclusion is no excuse.

Another smaller issue I had with Prometheus is that it could have built a lot more tension in certain scenes. When some characters are left behind in the "Engineers" building/temple alone, they suddenly act like horror film character cliches ("Hey, look at that weird thing. Let's touch it!!"), rather than the scientists and geologists that they really are. Also, certain scenes and shots could have been played out longer in order to ratchet up the tension even more. However, this was a minor gripe in an otherwise competently made film.

So, is Prometheus the perfect film like it's predecessor, Alien? No, unfortunately it's not. But, my biggest advice is to not go in comparing it to any of the Alien series, otherwise you will be severely disappointed. Go in expecting a sci-fi film that tries answering one of the many life-long questions - where exactly do we come from?

**** / *****

REVIEW: The Pact

Is it better when a horror film tries it's best to be original? Does that automatically make the film better?

The Pact revolves around sisters, Nicole (Agnes Bruckner) and Annie (Caity Lotz) who return to their childhood home after the death of their Mother. When Nicole is reported missing, Annie is left in the house on her own, when she is awoken in the middle of the night by bangs, open refrigerators and fallen photographs. What is it that's in the house with her? Why does she hate her Mother so much? And, what does the spirit want her to understand?

While The Pact isn't the most original take on the supernatural sub-genre of horror, it does offer some interesting points along the way. Just a quick look at the film's official poster will show you how generic this film seems to be, with the obvious nods to films like A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Frighteners that have used the iconic image of a face coming out of the wall before it.

However, I won't give too much away, but films are always better when it's personal to the main character, and The Pact uses this idea to it's advantage. The ghost isn't just some random spectre that has always been in the house. Annie quickly finds out who it is and is drawn into it's past to try and rid the house of the spirit.

That's where The Pact decides to shift gear from a haunted house film into a ghost investigation film and it suffers slightly from this. The film opens promisingly with some nice tension being built and the occasional jump scare. Long tracking shots through the house, through doorways and into the pitch black, leaving the audience waiting for something is just one example. A shadow darting across the background being another. Sometimes the Director, Nicholas McCarthy does seem to build tension up without a payoff of the actual scare, but the tension is sustained well throughout the opening that this doesn't cause too many problems.

When the film decides to change into an investigation film, which finds Annie visiting the police (a rugged and dishevelled Casper Van Dien) and a girl that can talk to the dead (Haley Hudson), it looses a lot of the tension. While there is still the occasional scare, it's not as relentless as the opening of the film, when Annie is left in her Mother's house on her own. However, some tension is still evident, as The Pact interestingly makes use of multiple suspects as to who the spirit could be. I often found myself thinking about who the ghost actually was, but unfortunately the film goes for the most obvious answer.

One small fault that I noticed in The Pact to be glaringly obvious was the music. Being a bit of a horror film geek, I always remember the story that John Carpenter would tell about Halloween, when he shown the first cut of the film to Producers without music and they said it wasn't scary enough. He then shown them the same film with music and they claimed it was the scariest thing they have ever seen.

That's where The Pact fails to make a lasting impression. It's use of music is so jarring that parts of the film that should be terrifying just aren't that scary. 

Tension building music would start randomly, without any sense of a building scare. When characters were upset or scared, the film's signature retro music (which wasn't the least bit scary) would start. Most of the film used silence, which I thought was very effective. It seems that the film should have used a more subtle choice use of music, or none at all.

Having said that, the film was a pleasant surprise overall and was better than I expected. While the film does take a weird direction after the opening into a ghost investigation, the scares are peppered in enough to keep the tension going and the third act is pleasantly refreshing compared to most other supernatural films (although it does open itself to many questions and a few plot holes!)

*** / *****

REVIEW: Snow White and the Huntsman

I remember the nights when I would stay up and read old fairy tales and fantasy stories before I would go to bed. I had this battered old red book that I would always go back to and often read the same stories over and over again.

Now, these weren't the popular fairy tales, but ones that I had never heard of before. The one I remember the most involved a young girl who always wore a ribbon around her neck. When her friend decided to untie the ribbon one day, her head fell clean off as she was decapitated at the neck. The story ended with her head rolling across the floor.

It was dark, macabre and frankly, quite scary for a child. It was everything a fairy story should be - a warning tale set in a fantasy land with a dash of the dark and scary. That, is exactly where Snow White and the Huntsman succeeds in telling a well-known fairytale very well.

The story does not need explaining really, but after her mother dies, Snow White (Kristen Stewart) and her Father, King Magnus (Noah Huntley) are left all alone. After being attacked by a mysterious army, Magnus falls in love with the beautiful Ravenna (Charlize Theron). On their wedding night, Ravenna kills Magnus and banishes Snow White to be locked up in the tallest tower (it's not really explained why she doesn't just kill her?!)
Eventually, Snow White escapes her prison into the dark woodland and Ravenna hires the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to bring her back so Ravenna can take her heart and be the fairest of them all. However, the Huntsman soon realises he is being used by Ravenna and her brother, Finn (Sam Spruell) and joins forces with Snow White to try and get the kingdom back that is rightfully hers.

While the story is well know, Snow White and the Huntsman does make several detours from the original story, and the well-known Disney version. Firstly, as the name suggests, this story is about Snow White and the Huntsman. While the seven dwarves are involved, they do not really take centre stage like they do in the Disney version, which may upset some people!
Secondly, is that this version is much darker than previous wide-released versions of Snow White. Ravenna takes other women's beauty to fuel her own by literally sucking the life from them and leaving them near death, the dark woodland is full of mysterious and deadly beasts and a settlement of women and children who have physically scared themselves so Ravenna will not take the life from them for their beauty.
Finally, parts of the film feel like a bit of a mash-up of other fairy tales and fantasy stories. The scene involving a troll felt like it was lifted directly from the fairy tale involving the three goats and the end battle where Snow White is attempting to take back her kingdom felt like an epic battle from Lord of the Rings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a way of keeping an old and well-known tale appear fresh and new.

Snow White and the Huntsman really shines in two main areas; the first being the gorgeous cinematography and the second being Charlize Theron.

For the cinematography, it feels like every single shot was thought about in depth all the way through the film. Two shots are tightly kept together, the depth of field is always nicely used (the background "out of focus" and the foreground "out of focus" while the actors remain "in focus") and the wide establishing shots are grand and sweeping across the landscape. It really adds to the experience of the film when you can tell that the Cinematographer (Greig Fraser) has obviously been given a chance to really work their magic.

However, Charlize Theron really steals the show in every scene that she is in. Despite her character having a slightly underdeveloped backstory, she still manages to draw the audience in with her desperation to rule and be the fairest in the land. We find out little about her childhood, but she is always desperate to rule the land and give the "pathetic land the ruler they deserve."
She tips the balance nicely between a power hungry ruler and desperation when she starts to slowly lose her beauty. When talking to the mirror (Christopher Obi), she manages to keep the balance again between humble servant to the mirror and tyrannical ruler, never letting either of them eclipse the other. Despite being in many films previously, I can't help but feel guilty that I have kind of "overlooked" Theron in the past and Snow White and the Huntsman really starts to suffer when she isn't used very much in the second act.

Despite a strong turn by Theron, the film does not come without it's flaws. The two main flaws being that the film drags slightly in the middle and Kristen Stewart's Snow White.

Like I just said, Theron's Ravenna isn't utilised much in the second act, so the threat feels lifted from the film. With no threat, there is no tension, so the film feels like it drags. Unfortunately, this comes in the film when the seven dwarves are introduced - something you would think that would be a highlight, but it's a point in the film where it feels muddled and Snow White and the Huntsman start dragging their feet on their mission (although the dwarves help them enter the kingdom for the final battle, they don't do much else and what was the point in having Snow White 'communicate' with the animals?)

Finally, I'm not a Kristen Stewart "basher" but she didn't bring anything to the role of Snow White. The writers (Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock and Hossein Amini) unfortunately kickstart her journey quite badly for her, as she leaves a new friend locked up in the castle without freeing her and then loosing her horse when she first enters the dark woodland and leaves it there to die. For all intents and purposes, we should dislike her character because she is selfish and quite heartless, but she is supposed to be the one that we are rooting for. However, Stewart's acting doesn't really do anything to counteract the script. She remains moody and full of teenage angst towards any character she encounters, weakly screams at the troll to 'communicate' with it and then delivers the most pathetically rousing "follow me into battle" speech that film has ever seen.

While Theron really know how to balance the two sides to her evil character, Stewart keeps Snow White as a two-dimensional hero who is quite boring.

So, overall, Snow White and the Huntsman is an impressive looking film, but it doesn't come without its flaws. If as much thought went into everything else as it did into the cinematography and direction, then the film could have been close to perfect.

***½ / *****

REVIEW: The Dictator

I've never left the cinema thinking, "Well, that was a waste of two hours of my life..." Or, "That's two hours of my life I'll never get back..."

That is, until today.

I've also only walked out of the cinema once. That was during the film Spy Game when both me and my friend had no idea what was going on so we just left. I don't like to make a habit of walking out of a film before it's complete or trashing films completely, but The Dictator is unfortunately going to be the latter.

If you are bothered, the film follows the fictional country of Wadiya's Dictator leader, Aladeen (Sacha Baron Cohen) as he makes his first trip to America to address the UN about their concerns of his country's nuclear weapons programme. When he gets there, he is double-crossed by his aide, Tamir (Ben Kingsley) and replaced with a double, so Wadiya can be made into a Democracy and Tamir can sell the oil and land rights to other countries in order to make a healthy profit. While he tries to get his beloved country back, Aladeen meets Zoey (Anna Faris) a vegan third world and civil rights loving American citizen, who he falls in love with.

The problem with any Sacha Baron Cohen film (Ali G, Borat, Bruno and now, The Dictator) is that you have to fall into a certain demographic to find it even remotely funny. If you are not a pre-pubescent boy, who has barely even kissed a girl or had a sniff of a relationship and still immature enough to find bodily functions funny, then films by Sacha Baron Cohen are just a waste of time.

The problem with The Dictator is that it fails to find any kind of audience, as jokes about third world countries, politics and dictator leaderships are lost on pre-pubescent boys who want to see boobs and fart jokes. But, the film is far too unintelligent to make worthwhile jokes about third world countries, politics and dictator leaderships to appeal to an older and more mature audience. The film features a fair few digs at American politicians, but then in the next scene it has two of Aladeen's female "Virgin Guards" kissing and getting naked - a group of 15 year old boys actually groaned when the boobs were cut off the screen so you couldn't see anything (another example of the film failing to appeal to it's primary audience!!)

The truth is, I didn't really laugh properly once during The Dictator. I chuckled, I even smiled once or twice, but most of the time it was so boring and stupid that I found myself wanting the film to end.

Now, I know what Sacha Baron Cohen films are like, as I am sure many of you are who are even remotely aware of his previous films. But, the fact is, there are only so many times that you can be so offensive and still be found funny.

I fondly remember the days at school where we would all impersonate Ali G. I remember laughing a lot during the first screening of Borat, but it hadn't held up well on repeat viewings. I didn't even watch Bruno because the previews did nothing for me. To be honest, I only watched The Dictator because I have a cinema pass where I can see as many films as I want.

The fact of the matter is, is that Sacha Baron Cohen has just lost it. He was, really, a one-hit-wonder with Ali G and started to push it with Borat. Anything after that and it's just a bunch of uninspired mess.

If you like weak comedy about American politics/culture while having boobs, lesbian, farts and vagina jokes thrown in between, then The Dictator is right up your street. Anyone who has a resemblance of a brain and idea of comedy should give this film a wide berth.

½ / *****