Vault Reviews: The Screaming Skull (1958) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #8

Cheese filled and stupid, but not totally lacking in charms.

This is a stupid film. It's acting is wooden, it's plot nonsensical and it expects you to be scared of a small prop skull and some peacocks. However its not entirely witless, and has a creepy element here and there.

Firstly, actor/director Alex Nicol rises above the other mediocre performances in the film and offers something fairly compelling and a touch creepy. Despite this little glimmer however, the acting is mostly bland and amateurish, worsened by a horrible script of horrendous dialogue.

Next, the atmosphere of the film is still strong. It has that unique blend of camp and creep that only the 50's could offer. Some of the skull's POV shots are also fairly suspenseful, a precursor to the techniques used in later slasher films. The suspense is ruined by the source of the fear (a skull and a few peacocks) and a weird immersion breaking break in the film (also evident in the MST3K version).

Overall the film's charms are outdone by its leaden dialogue, weak acting and silly 'scares'. The final nail in the coffin is the overtly complicated plot, which ruins the 'dumb-fun' vibe and makes it more infuriating than entertaining. However, it may still have use as a slice of stinky 50's cheese.

Originally posted 17/10/14, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: Dracula (1931) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #7

One of the most important and influential horror films ever.

Tod Browning's Dracula is a landmark. Not simply among horror films, but a landmark for all of cinema. It played a vital role in moving the horror genre into the sound era, and setting the blueprints for the various other 'monster' films that followed throughout the 30's and 40's. It also cemented the Universal brand as being the chief mass entertainers of the age, with their brand of Gothic horror leaving a gigantic mark on film history. However, outside of this titanic influence, does the film still hold up after 83 years?

Firstly the acting. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is truly immortal and has not aged a day. It still holds as a perfect example of actor and character becoming one, and there is a reason that Lugosi stands as the iconic Dracula, despite innumerable other renditions of the character. Dwight Frye is also wonderful as Renfield, bringing chilling creepiness to every scene he inhabits. He also carries a sympathetic weight and tragedy throughout adding layers to the role. Between these two, the acting is already a treat regardless of the other performances. Edward Van Sloan is the only other performance of note, filled with the authoritative dignity the man was renown for. However despite these great stars in the leading roles, the supporting cast is a massive letdown. Average at best, distressingly bland and wooden at worst. Many scenes begin to slump together as a result of these limp performances. Overall however the acting does stand strong due to the leads, but suffers from uneven support.

The set design and imagery is stunning. One of the most iconic Gothic mansion ever put to film features in the opening, a true treat for a fan. However the visuals do dip slightly upon arrival in England, where more generic period sets feature. Some nice lighting and creepy highlights (a sequence featuring live rats running around in a coffin filled basement in particular) do keep the momentum of the opening go throughout however, so overall the sets and imagery do hold up well. The cinematography is far more dated, it is often stiff and doesn't take full advantage of the locations. This fault was fixed in the alternate Spanish version of the film, with far more haunting camera movements.

The lacking score is a dividing point for many. Some view it as creepy and ambient, where's other feel it is awkward and an example of the holdover elements from silent cinema. I personally agree more with the later, however it does work at times (the rat sequence once again springs to mind).

Overall the film is still strong. However when compared to the work's of contemporaneous director 'James Whale' (who also made monster films for Universal), it is clear that it is severely lacking in polish and shows its age far more than it really should. There is enough immortal material here to warrant its continuous status as a classic. However many elements hold it back, not least of which is an almost laughably anti-climatic climax and ending which leave an oddly sour taste in the mouth.

Originally posted 16/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: Gone Girl (2014)

Possibly the best film of the year. A masterpiece.

I must point out here that I have not read the original source novel, also I will be extremely careful to avoid any spoilers as this film MUST NOT be spoiled. Aside from that, I feel totally confident in declaring this as the best film I have seen all year. Fincher has crafted one of the all time great thrillers, and has done so in an aggressive and brutal fashion. Although its premature to call it a career best, its fair to say that this film deserves to be in contention for that honor at least.

Firstly, the acting is stellar. I demand an Oscar for Rosamund Pike, for giving the best performance I have seen all year. I will not describe why it is so remarkable, as it is a clue to some of the film's reveals, however you will be shocked suffice to say. Affleck is perfectly cast and works well, playing to his strengths and probably giving the performance of his career. In the supporting cast, Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens are great and I hope they receive more work in the future, possibly even some high profile starring roles. However, better still is Tyler Perry, delivering a shockingly hilarious and fitting performance, showcasing impeccable comic timing and oozing personality in every scene. The film has a cast for the ages, everybody works well and every scene raises the bar further into the stratosphere.

The screenplay is excellent, written by the writer of the book (Gillian Flynn) and containing all the delicacy and detail of a great novel. However with enough of an adaptation to feel naturalistic, its not 2 and half hours of having a novel read out to you, as it easily could have been. It gives the actors all the space and material to show their skill and presence on screen and has a twisted plot line worthy of Fincher.

The cinematography is wonderful. It is shot with the detail and precision of a master, a title which Fincher has more than earned by this stage. Well balanced lighting, a fitting palette, it truly looks perfect. The set design is also perfectly planned and well constructed, encouraging you to look for even the slightest clues in Fincher/Flynn's warped minds. 

Overall, I implore you to watch this brutal and devilishly twisted little number from one of the best collaborations in modern cinema. If Flynn writes every Fincher film in the future, with Pike as the star, then I'd be overjoyed.

Originally posted 14/10/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: The Phantom of the Opera (1925) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #6

As shrouded as a Phantom.

This film has one of the most disastrous post-production history's I can think for a horror film. Allegedly at one time at least 3 versions of the film existed, each with different scenes, tones and endings. However today only one version exists, luckily it is all we need.

Lon Chaney as the Phantom is astonishing. With the bare visual essentials he is able to chill, excite and entertain better than any other rendition of the character since. He brings a sympathetic weight that many would not immediately think of in reference to the story, and he offers an outlook on deformity and loneliness witch strikes a cord even today, 89 years later. It is hard to discuss the make-up, because it is so perfect and deeply integrated into the film's effect. Chaney looks like a demon, and his jerky movements transform him into a living gargoyle on screen. The film deserves it's rating for the wonderfully shocking and perfectly built up unmasking sequence.

Aside from Lon Chaney, the set design is sumptuous and highly impressive for the time. One of the better examples of a large scale period piece being attempted in the 1920's (possibly due to the adoption of some German expressionist techniques and ideas in the set design). This lavish set design is particularly prominent during the colour sequence, a dazzling and highly enjoyable barrage of Technicolour and macabre imagery. However this effect is ruined somewhat when we later see the same setting in black & white, diminishing the dreamlike and magical quality of the scene. The other actors are solid also, however Mary Philbin's stereotypical damsel in distress can become granting after a while.

Although it may be unfair to comment on the score, because it was added after the film's original release, however it is breathtaking. I would honestly declare it a masterpiece of a score and a massive part of the film's effect is derived from it flowing between daunting organ pieces, to ambient percussion, and then to iconic orchestra bombast. Although I do not wish to undersell the film overall, I will admit that 90% of the film's power comes from the following four elements alone:

1. Lon Chaney as the Phantom. 

2. The musical score. 

3. The colour sequence. 

4. The exciting and emotional ending.

This is possibly to the film's detriment, as long stretches can drag a bit and other elements are pushed aside in one's memory after seeing the film.

Overall I loved this creepy little gem. Although much of the Phantom is lost to the mist of history, the shadow that remains is ghoulish enough to remain a classic of the silent age.

Originally posted 13/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: Sunshine (2007) HALLOWEEN 'HORROR' REVIEWS #5

A brilliant sci-fi thriller......which then devolves into a disastrous slasher humiliation.

This is one of the most rage inducing films I will cover this month. The first two-thirds are a beautifully written and cerebral science fiction masterpiece. However at around the two-thirds mark, it changes and drops all of its clever aspects and ideas.

Before I cover this, I'll talk about the films promising start. The films cast is exceptional, both in terms of acting and reflecting thematically on the film itself. The ships multicultural crew helps to represent that this is a global crisis. American, British, Japanese, Oceanic and Chinese actors were employed to demonstrate this, with perfect casting all-around. Cillian Murphy offers a strong and charismatic performance (as expected), Hiroyuki Sanada brings a powerful nobility befitting of a leader, and Chris Evans offers a moral grayness rarely seen in other large sci-fi productions. The only significant issues I have with the casting and acting of the film is that Michelle Yeoh was pretty much wasted, and Mark Strong is given horrendous material. However this material only occurs during the films terrible climax, which I will cover at the end.

The screenplay is, at first, very good also. Focusing on the effects of human error rather than convoluted villains and freak occurrences adds a reliability and tragedy to the events that are also often missing in certain sci-fi plots. The pacing is solid and allows for a good amount of character and atmosphere without seeming bloated or losing focus. Furthermore the dialogue seems natural, and fitting for a group of intelligent individuals (Physicists, Psychiatrists, Astronauts etc.). The screenplay dives during the climax also however, suffering worse than the other elements in fact. 

The soundtrack to the film is epic, defiantly one of the reasons the film starts off so strong. John Murphy tops his excellent work on the '28 Days Later' OST, bringing a sense of grandeur to the proceedings of the film. It truly is one of the great modern soundtracks.

Now I will talk about the climax. The reason my rating is a 5 rather than the 7/8 the first two-thirds were worthy of. Without spoiling the film, the cerebral and intelligent tone set throughout the preceding film is totally dropped and a slasher-horror tone replaces it. I honestly didn't want to review this film as a horror, however that is what it becomes. It ends on a ridiculous and laughable note, ruining the majestic scientific concepts which propelled the film forward prior to the climax. In addition, it takes the previously promising scenes with Mark Strong, and ruins them, turning him into a campy slasher villain and robbing the film of its tragic overarching tone. Established by the villain-free human errors which occur at the start of the film.

Overall, this film totally crashes and burns. It switches genre in the most ham-fisted manner possible, and spoils everything the film previously stood for. I would almost call it a betrayal.

Originally posted 11/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: Night of the Living Dead (1968) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #4

One of the most effective, and important, horror films of the 1960's.

This film is one of the most influential films in American cinema history, both for its massive contribution to all horror films, but its role in shaping American independent cinema also. It's honestly shocking to think of all the amazing films that wouldn't exist without this initial spark, and what a bright spark it is.

More than just an important milestone, 'NotLD' remains a stellar horror film to this day. With excellent writing, a perfect atmosphere and beautiful black and white cinematography. Even now, despite the over-saturation of zombie films we have, nothing has been made which is quite like the progenitor (aside the 1990's remake). Its hopeless and desperate situation, its brief timespan (as the title suggests, only one night), and its shocking ending all remain mostly unique to this single film 46 years after its release. 

The film does show its age, and low budget at times. However this is only 2-3% of the time, the other 97-98% you are stuck wondering how so much timeless brilliance can be squeezed into a single (relatively short) horror film. The tight location is used to its full and that simple cabin in the woods has become the parent to all others in the many decades to follow.

Overall, it's 'NotLD'. What more can you expect other than glowing praise?

Originally posted 8/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: The Borderlands (2013) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #3

A daring, fresh and genuinely creepy indie achievement.

The Borderlands is a rare creation. It borrows much from earlier films, and yet it feels fresh and brings some brilliant new ideas to a well worn subgenre. It does this despite a tiny budget, simple camera techniques and cheap locations. I would therefore argue that this film could be taken as an example on how to ensnare an audience despite limited resources.

The first thing of note is the cast. There are only four significant performances in the entire film, and that is all that is needed. The four main actors are all great and come across as competent and capable. Each character works off the others beautifully, and there are some great themes and clever symbolism being portrayed through them. The breakout performance is undoubtedly Gordon Kennedy as Deacon, I hope he is able to get some more prominent roles in bigger productions after this. The acting is reinforced by a naturalistic and confident script, complimenting the rough found footage format the film uses. Despite the featherweight budget, the characters are perfectly developed and the story doe not feel restricted or small in scale, alluding to many complex and deep traits that would be impossible to otherwise portray with the small budget.

Next the horror elements. The film has a powerful sense of dread, which steadily builds throughout. It actually allows the audience to put themselves in the mind of the characters, a trait that only top tier horror can accomplish. The found footage approach allows for an intimacy with the characters which is usually prohibited in low-budget horror, this allows for the tension of the film to connect to the viewer at a personal level. The imagery is excellent too, creepy, violent and unnerving in ways that most films simply are not. The ending is also an example of a perfect payoff to a well formed atmosphere and is amongst the scariest scenes in recent film history.

Overall, the Borderlands is a triumph of low-fi horror and paranormal scares. In a world where crap like 'The Possession' can have millions thrown into their production, its nice to see a gem like this being made.

Originally posted 6/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: The Possession (2012) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #2

A hilarious example of everything that can go wrong with modern horror films.

This is a film of two halves, both of which are terrible. Half one is a boring re-heated slice of Hollywood pseudo-horror, commercial slop with no artistic merit or purpose outside of milking money out of horror fans at this time of year. The other half, is one of the most baffling and awkward horror films of the last decade or so. 

The first element of this predictable and stale, yet fascinatingly bad and hilarious, mess is the acting. Generic, done a thousand times before, 'creepy' child acting, relying on the same tricks that have been used since 'The Omen'. The only interesting thing about the performance of (as I like to call her) 'creepy little girl 2070' is the hilariously inept screenplay. For example, there is sequence wherein this child stabs her father through the hand with a fork, this is met with her being sent to bed and being mildly chastised and reprimanded. I don't feel I need to comment on how people don't act like this in any way shape or form. This performance particularly bothers me, and is a microcosm for the entire film, being both dull and forgettable and profoundly sloppy and terrible. The rest of the acting is average to mediocre, made worse by a weak script with inhuman dialogue and leaden exposition.

Next are the film's scares, key in all horror films. They are mostly non-existent. Either lame, predictable jump scares or dull and recycled 'creepy' scenes borrowed from the various other exorcism based films of the last decade. Literally the only original scary concept or image in the film, is on the poster and in the trailer,so even that was wasted. The film fails to create an atmosphere because it has no identity, and fails to scare because it has no surprises.

Next is the film's rather odd theme. Jewish folklore. This is a fairly specific and honestly intriguing focus point for the film. Or it would be if it wasn't introduced over an hour into the film. The theme is wasted and does not reflect at all in the previous hour of the film, with not a single explanation for why this specific entity, from this culture, targeted this little girl. In addition to this, the Jewish exorcism is filmed and treated the same as a more recognisable Catholic exorcism (I do not know if the two ceremonies are actually this similar, or if the Jewish faith even has exorcism, however I f they are this similar then why bother with the distinction at all?), sucking all chance for uniqueness are flavour the film could have in one scene. The ending twist, although I will not spoil, suffice to say is another example of an overdone and obvious modern horror film technique.

Overall the film is a travesty. I would call it the horror equivalent to "Crash"(due to its moronic writing, reheated ideas and total lack of punch), however I feel more confused than angry here, unlike with Crash. This film was also not given the acclaim that Crash was, and has rightfully been left to die on the side of the street, with all the other generic horror retreads to have emerged in the last 15 years. This is for the greater good I assure you.

Originally posted 3/10/14 on IMDB.com. as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014

Vault Reviews: Psycho (1960) HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS #1

Rightfully considered one of the all time horror masterpieces.

To Begin my rush of October horror reviews, I will now cover one of the most iconic and acclaimed horror films ever. Alfred Hitchcock's often imitated, but never matched, Psycho.

To start, the film has possibly one of the tightest screenplays ever written. Innumerable twists, plays on the audiences expectations and elegant little subversions upon itself make the plot come alive and dazzle like a firecracker. I mean it when I say that 54 years after its release the rest of the genre is still trying to catch-up Joseph Stefano and Robert Bloch's masterpiece of a screenplay. However, the way Hitchcock delivers this script is also incredible. Small visual hints and tricks make the film a joy to re-watch. For example, we see a woman in white underwear, later in the film she wears black underwear to show that she has committed an impure act. Such tiny details, but the impact is massive on the whole.

Next the acting. Anthony Perkins delivers one of the most effective 'creepy' performances of all time. Like the screenplay it too has not been matched in 54 years and remains the yardstick for all psychopathic portrayals in film. Aside from Perkins however, the rest of the cast give strong performances, particularly Janet Leigh in the 'starring' role. 

The set design is legendary. Such mundane and simple locations are brought to life by the films exquisite lighting and use of shadows. The house in the background to the main set looms like a falcon, and casts a shadow over all the preceding events. You feel like someone is watching you at all times, and are constantly on edge. Such simple images as a stuffed bird, or a tall staircase are used so effectively here. This film remains an icon on minimalist set design, and how to creep your audience out with the simplest of imagery. 

Overall I cannot praise this film enough. One of the most iconic and brilliant films, from one of the most iconic and brilliant directors of all time.

Originally posted 1/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of Halloween Horror Reviews 2014

Vault Reviews: Vampire's Kiss (1988)

Certainly a Unique Creature.

There has never quite been a film like Vampire's Kiss, and there has not even been an imitator since. It is an absurd, hilarious semi- spoof of all things horror, whilst also being a surreal and powerful delve into the damaged psych of horrid human being. I honestly feel I need to break this down in pieces.

The elephant in the room is Nick Cage. His performance is excellent, but takes getting used to. He is hilariously over the top, moving like Max Schrek on Caffine pills. He talks in a petulant and whiny 'vaguely British' voice, also leading to some really goofy line readings. However despite this camp factor, there is depth here. Cage is also believable here, he stays perfectly true to the character throughout and forms a unique identity that can only be found here. It reminds me of Christian Bale in 'American Psycho', which is fitting as Bale based his performance off this film. One aspect I will bring up often here is thee film's re-watch value, suffice to say that Cage's performance changes and shifts upon numerous viewings.

Next is the direction. It showcases some great shots of New York, almost making it feel alive. The cinematography highlights the striking architecture and uneven lighting of the city, almost showing it to be a real life translation of classic horror settings. However it also shows the clinical detachment of such a large city, and the Yuppie culture that has grown from it. The other performances match this films dual nature also, taking classic horror roles at times, and being typical Yuppie's at others.

Night and Day, Gothic and Modern, Deep and Funny, Dark and Light. This film performs an entirely unique juggling act that has never been matched since. Both a homage to classic horror tales, and a deconstruction of the 80's Yuppie lifestyle.

Originally posted 29/9/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: The Last Airbender (2010)

The absolute worst. An insult.

I despise this film. Basically that's the gist of this review. I adore the source material so I may be considered biased, however I have watched this from non-fans of the show and the reaction was similar. Not a single element in this mess works, not a single idea comes to fruition. So let's begin the burning.

The acting is atrocious. I cannot come up with any adjectives to properly describe how bad it is. It feels like a school play, or an April fools prank. Lines are delivered with no conviction, emotion or confidence and there is almost never any expression Only Dev Patel is able to maintain some dignity in this, and even he would be considered mediocre in any competent film. All the personality and depth found in the performances found in the show are totally nonexistent here.

Next, the unbelievably asinine writing. This is likely worse than the acting, and is frankly an insult on three levels:

1. To any fan of the show, its writing, its universe or its characters.

2. To any fan of film who has ever enjoys a written piece of dialogue.

3. To any human who has ever held a conversation or read a written word. 

Wooden, clunky and lacking any flavour or personality. The leaden exposition turns a magical and enchanting universe into a grey prison cell for creativity. It feels like the script has leeched every spec of power, fun or depth found in the source material. It isn't even funny, its infuriating and brain numbing. The acting in this film sucks, however I feel sorry for any actor who had to read these lines.

Furthermore, the visuals are pathetic. The effects are horribly outdated and limit the awe inspiring visuals and action of the show into becoming a crappy video game. No size, no weight, no impact. The worst that CGI has to offer. The production design is cheap and tacky, again wringing all the majesty of the show out and leaving a wilted husk behind. The same applies to the costume and make-up, which is probably even weaker due to some particular offences (Zuko's scar is barely noticeable, turning his 'horrific disfigurement' into a slight crease and reddening).

I could go into the changes from the show, and other such issues from the perspective of a fan, but that's not the point. This is not a complaint from the perspective of a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, or a film fan. This is from a person who has common sense and standards. This is an insulting piece of filth that showcases pretty much everything that can possibly go wrong when making a film. I don't believe in calling films 'evil' or 'dangerous' but this wreck might be the exception. I dare anyone to offer a hint of praise to this, thing.

Originally posted 23/9/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Lucy (2014)

How could so much talent unite to create something so meaningless?

I adore Min-Sik Choi. He is among my favourite living actors and blows my mind every time I see him (I implore you all to see Oldboy). Furthermore Scarlett Johanson and Morgan Freeman are actors for whom I hold a great deal of respect for, particularly if given a good script. I also enjoy Luc Besson's work, I consider Leon to be a masterpiece in particular.

So when I heard about film that supposedly combined all these talents into a high concept sci-fi thriller, I was hyped. This enthusiasm barely flattered even after the sub-par reviews came in. I hoped that, despite some rough edges an overall interesting and enjoyable film was still possible. I was very much wrong.

I will start with the film's pacing. It is fairly slow in its first few scenes (the best part of the film) and shows a little promise, however it cranks into overdrive at around the 1/4 mark and doesn't allow for anything resembling character or atmosphere. This seems indicative of a harsh editing process, just like the script. It feels like deep ideas and characters may have existed in some earlier draft of the script, but not here. Everything is so rushed that it comes of as feeling dumb, flaccid and lacking in any punch whatsoever.

Next let's look at the acting. Min-Sik Choi shows promise early on, and does what he can with the material, however he is totally wasted and irrelevant to the films core plot. I almost started routing for him in the end as I was desperate to see him given the material he so clearly deserved. Scarlett Johanson is also clearly trying as hard as she can, in a role that doesn't allow her to show any emotion or personality whatsoever. Morgan Freeman probably escapes with more dignity than the rest of the main cast, as he is basically playing the typical Morgan Freeman stock character, the wizened mentor. The rest of the cast come off terribly, being either annoying, laughable or dull. Particularly Lucy's 'love interest'. His hilariously bad performance almost beggared belief at times.

The films features atrocious CGI, it is particularly damming for a sci-fi film when the effects are weak. This factors into the film's pathetic action, which is largely caused by the film's untouchable protagonist and lack of threat in any of the action sequences. A car chase 2/3 into the film is particularly tedious and features some awful lines from our lead.

Overall, despite a team seemingly capable of birthing this ambitious project, Lucy falls flat on it's face. I was beyond disappointed as I was genuinely hyped for this 89 minute long train-wreck.

Originally posted 10/9/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Hercules (1997)

A weird and highly mixed Disney film.

In light of the two recent Hercules films, I have decided to revisit this little Klein bottle of confusion. I have always been baffled by this film, and I feel the need to talk about it here.

For a start, the animation (a microcosm for the entire film) is highly mixed, and confusing. The art direction was headed by Gerald Scarfe.... why was he chosen? He is known for his surrealist, political satirical work. Greek legend and Disney animation do not come to mind when he is mentioned. As such, the art design of the film (whilst creative and unique) feels very confused, baring little resemblance to the iconic imagery of ancient Greece. The only real exception to this is in the landscapes, and the underworld, these both look very pretty and, in the case of the underworld, interestingly surreal. Overall, whilst colourful and distinct, the animation seems out of place and it mostly falls flat.

The voice cast is mostly forgettable and range between average to slightly sub-par . The only real exceptions are James Woods and Danny DeVito, both of whom are highly entertaining and get the best lines. They also voice the most interesting characters, Hades and Phil, in a similar sea of mediocrity. Hades, whilst hardly a standout classic, is a strong villain, both in terms of design and humour. Phil is a likable mentor, who actually has a more entertaining ac than the hero (a bad sign). These glimmers of hope a few in the dim void of the other characters, I truly cannot stress how little impact the other "characters" leave.

The music......is probably the most forgettable in Disney's history. 

The plot is weird and jumbled, the pacing is broken. It sometimes skips large pieces (for example the majority of Herc's training) and is often rather slow (the intro is shockingly lengthy). This adds to the choppiness of the whole film.

Overall, it's surprising that the illustrious studio made something this....amateurish. It isn't bad per-se, as the good elements are entertaining enough, however I wouldn't really recommend it either. It's a mixed bag.

Originally posted 18/8/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005-2008) [TV show review]

A Statement On Perfection. True Unequaled Bliss.

This review will be very long. I adore this show with every fiber of my being, and view it to be a piece of animated perfection. I implore people to avoid the disgusting live-action adaptation by director M. Night Shyamalan, as it is a disrespectful sham that mocks everything that the show stood for and mastered.So as for the show itself, where to begin? Well let's start with the story overall. 

Avatar tells a complete a perfectly paced epic plot over the course of 61 22 minute episodes. The show contains several unique and beautifully detailed characters among its main cast, all of whom are given consistent and engaging development throughout. From family related guilt and angst, identity dilemmas and the characters constant, overarching and looming quest, the characters are pressed with many trials which actually truly change them over the course of their magnificent journey. Aside from the primary cast, many intriguing and varied side characters appear throughout the adventure. They offer comedic levity, new forms of drama and help to add to the deep mythological and philosophical backbone of the show. All characters are exquisitely written and voice acted, with not a badly portrayed among them. 

Next I will cover the show's borderline legendary animation. It is a sight to behold indeed. I believe I am justified in believing that such stellar production values will never again be pared with this level of artistic imagination again, at least not in my lifetime. The scope, creativity and energy of the shows animation is second to no other show, and it's balance of colour is never anything less than sublime. Aside from sweeping and moving visuals, Avatar also offers fast paced and unbelievably well choreographed action scenes (once again, second to none) and well timed slapstick comedy. Not only is the animation stunning, it is also staggeringly versatile. 

The show's epic mythos is also very strong, and demands to be deepened and added to (thankfully Korra is doing just that). It takes inspiration from Buddhist, Inuit, Western, Japanese and Korean cultures to deliver it's unique world, as well as many original and creative elements in conjunction with the more recognisable real world concepts. The show manages to weave philosophy and deep moral concepts within its world and characters, creating one of the most fleshed out fantasy worlds of the last several decades. 

In conclusion, what can I even say? I love Avatar: TLA more every time I experience it, and it is one of very few shows (or even films) which can provoke a primal emotional response from me each time I see it, without fail. It sends shivers down my spine, and puts a tear to my eye, leaving me totally satisfied and fulfilled each time. My favourite television show, of all time.

Originally posted 15/8/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Future Shock (1994)

Severely underrated, an effective anthology.

This film is not a masterpiece and I shall not pretend that it is. However it does offer some surprisingly fresh and effective ideas and is overall and enjoyable watch.

Segment one is surprisingly tense for a film with a clearly tiny budget. The lead actress' performance is strong enough to sustain the segment, the camera-work creates a good feeling of isolation and vulnerability, and the downplayed musical score adds to the sense of dread throughout. This is the simplest short and uses this to its advantage.

Segment two veers into a more darkly comedic tone. It works due to the entertaining performances of the leads and the effectively surrealist atmosphere. However overall this is the weakest segment, mostly due to feeling out of place with the rest of the film.

Segment three is the best, due to its less goofy attempts at dark comedy over the last segment. It actually offers a fairly entertaining and in depth character study and offers some fairly complex ideas on the nature of mortality. The writing is good, the acting is solid and the humorous moments are well integrated.

Overall I was very impressed by this simple yet effective anthology. Its low budget charm and snappy writing really created an enjoyable tone for this one, and I highly recommend it, despite its quirks.

Originally posted 1/8/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

A truly stunning and spectacular masterpiece from Wes Anderson.

I am not very experienced when it comes to Wes Anderson. I despise his adaptation of 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and I had not seen another of his films, until Grand Budapest Hotel (GBH).

I have now however decided to add GBH to my favourite films list, and for good reason. Firstly the drop dead gorgeous cinematography, which is so stylish and clever that it almost becomes a character in its own right. The angles used perfectly to emphasis the emotions of the characters and give personality to the settings (most notably the hotel itself).This along with the lavish set design and stunning scenery are undoubtedly the film's greatest strength and are amongst the greatest examples of the craft I have ever seen. If the Oscar's fail to recognise these achievements, I shall be horribly disappointed. 

The performances and writing are also great. Ralph Fiennes steals the show with his hilarious, detailed and unique performance in the lead role. Adrein Brody, Tony Revolori, Willem Dafoe and Saoirse Ronan also deserve praise for their enjoyable and distinct efforts in the films glorious ensemble cast. All the characters are written beautifully and highly entertainingly, with Anderson injecting his style without allowing it to overwhelm the film or consume the characters.

Finally, I appreciate the film's sharp pacing and tone. It keeps things brisk, light and energetic (I'm amazed so much was squeezed into 90 mins so effortlessly), however still for slow moments of character and atmosphere. The film also balances darker character moments and the use of the film's primary framing device is integral to it's almost dreamlike atmosphere.

In conclusion, Wes Anderson has won me over with his masterful work. I guess you could call me a fan now after all.

Originally posted 16/7/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

A True Star of the Silent Era.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is among the greatest films of the silent era and one of the most influential films in the early years of the horror genre. This is due to a number of inspired elements.

Firstly the highly expressive acting and excellent costume design. The film is able to effectively form an identity for each of the characters without the use of sound, and with limited screen time. This efficient character development is crucial to keeping the viewers invested in the film's excellent and mysterious plot.

Secondly, and possibly most significantly, the set design and visual style. The sets are probably the quintessential example of the "German Expressionist" movement, and its use with the film is simply ingenious when put in context with the ending. The simple but highly effective use of different colour camera tints throughout the film also add to this film's individualistic style. The use of blue tints in night time scenes, pink tints in scenes with romantic undertones and so on is a brilliant example of the film makers taking advantage of every resource available to create atmosphere, tension and to convey character.

Thirdly, the unbelievably effective story. I shall not spoil it here, but this film has one of the most legendary twist endings of all time. The genius of the ending is still powerful to this day and one can only imagine the impact it left on spellbound audiences in 1920. However the story prior to this twist is an effective mystery on its own. The films greatest strength in terms of its storytelling is how it is able to convey so much through its visuals. Be it through the actor's body language or the masterful set design, the film almost doesn't require the exposition provided by the title cards.

In conclusion, I hold this film as a true gem of the silent era, and amongst the most important early horror films. Brilliant is an understatement.

Originally posted 30/6/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Crash (2004)

This film won best picture? I honestly fail to see how.

This film baffles me. I cannot understand why the academy bestowed such a high honour to a film as ham-fisted, poorly written and pretentious as this. The academy is by no means flawless in it's decision making, however this is a confusingly ill-judged misstep.

This film opens with meaningless and self important drivel that means nothing in the grand scheme. It serves only to shoehorn the title into an important sounding piece of dialogue. The audience is then victim to around 20 minutes of hammered in rambling concerning racism. This dialogue is painfully obvious and predictable, and the scenes themselves seem determined to reinforce the stereotypes they present rather than debunk them. For example, a scene consisting of a young black man talking about the smaller aspects of racism (fine), and lamenting popular stereotypes (fine). The scene then ends with the man and his brother then mugging a white couple and stealing their car. I fail to see what this scene was meant to convey. 

The film then continues to awkwardly defend racist acts, such as an experienced cop who attributes racism to his sick father and negative experience with black criminals. This cop is seen sexually assaulting a black woman and harassing her present husband, however he is redeemed by saving her from a car latter. The film has therefore ended its argument without saying anything of note. Wasting the audiences time. Crash attempts to showcase how numerous ethnicities can be guilty of racist acts themselves, however it fails to do this convincingly. The fact that every character in the film shows racist characteristics kills all sense of reality the film has. I am not racist, my friends are not, and I know few people who are, this is true of many people in our progressive and accepting society . The film however creates a hyper- reality in which everybody is actively prejudiced, and yet presents a story that is meant to be taken as a portrayal of reality. This therefore fails to reflect reality in any way, further weakening the message. 

The films acting is serviceable. Don Cheadle is solid and so are a few others, however there are many weak links and flat performances. Fraiser and "Ludacris" are the worst offenders here. However the flaccid and moronic script kills some otherwise OK performances, as the characters are made to behave like ultra racist aliens rather than typical LA citizens. 

So what is good? The cinematography is very nice, honestly deserves a much better film. And that's about it. I will end this review here, as it is becoming as long winded and irrelevant as the film itself. I will leave you with this: Crash honestly claims that buses have large windows because of racism. If this line was meant to be ironic or something, the film gave me no indication of this and I find it unlikely in context.

Originally posted 25/6/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: The Conjuring (2013)

A look at James Wan and his modern horror masterpiece

James Wan is among the most influential horror directors in recent. His smash hit "Saw", a film which I am a large fan of, lead to the most successful horror franchise of the 2000's and the increasingly violent and disturbing nature of the films sequels caused the popularisation of the "Torture porn" subgenre. Wan has also reaped significant success with his recently popular "Insidious" series. So why is Wan successful and why do I like him so much?

Wan is a director who understands the secret to suspense, the unknown and the fear it creates. By keeping key details shrouded in shadow, and keeping the audience in the dark as to what's going to happen, Wan is able to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. This is helped also by Wan's talent for creating likable and identifiable characters, this makes the audience care all the more about what is going to happen next. This is used to great effect in "The Conjuring". Relatively large cast of characters are all surprisingly realistic and memorable, seeming real enough to warrant the audiences interest and sympathy. The nature of the supernatural elements are also kept largely in shadow for the majority of the film, keeping the audience constantly nervous and more susceptible to the films fantastically chilling atmosphere.

Wan also keeps his premises simple, but nuanced and detailed at the same time. "The Conjuring", at surface level, is a simple haunted house story. However the smaller details, such as the complex character relationships and strong character development, makes this concept feel fresh. 

The film looks great too. The cinematography is great and takes full advantage of the tight environment and period setting to get some brilliant angles. The period of the 70's is perfectly brought to life through the soundtrack, costumes and colour palette, which immediately invokes films such as "Amityville Horror". Despite the isolated setting, the film dares to make use of other locations at times to add to the scale of the conflict and to keep latter parts of the film visually engaging. In particular the grounds surrounding the house are responsible for some truly memorable images and every moment spent there drips with mood and a chilling atmosphere.

The film succeeds in being very scary also, without having to resort to cheap jump scares. The film is brave and effective enough to simply allow the tension, atmosphere and characters to drive the scary moments, there is no artificiality here. 

In conclusion, aside from "Saw" this stands as my favourite Wan film to date and my favourite horror film of the last few years. "The Conjuring" manages to feel classic and fully realised, whilst still being fresh and filled with personality. Wan is ahead of the game by a country mile.

Originally Posted 12/6/14 on IMDB.com

Vault Reviews: Godzilla (2014)

A Highly Mixed and Overall Disappointing Reboot of the Classic Franchise

This film was easily my most anticipated release of the year, as a huge fan of the classic Toho franchise. My anticipation was amplified by the release of the excellent Pacific Rim last year, showing that the Kaiju genre can survive with modern special effect techniques. Sadly I was disappointed and I found this reboot to be a jumbled mess that failed to satisfy. As the film is highly inconsistent, I will evaluate both the positives and negatives of this production.

The Good: -Bryan Cranston offers a fantastic performance, helped by the fact that he is given the only developed character with an arc. -The effects on the Kaiju are great, particularly Godzilla who himself looks fantastic. -Perfect Sound design with a top-notch soundtrack. Particular praise must be given to Godzilla's iconic roar which is lovingly recreated, yet slightly modernised. -Finally the cinematography, set design, lighting and overall mise-en- scene is strong here.

The Bad: -The majority of the cast is awful (The only notable omissions are Cranston and a child featured during a sequence on a public train). They either fail to emote or have nothing to do. Particularly awful is Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who's expression almost never changes and has no emotional range at all. A truly terrible lead. -Bryan Cranston's character dies within the first 15-20 minutes. He then leaves a hole that the film totally fails to fill. -There is barely any actual monster action in this. Every time a fight begins, the film haphazardly cuts to the human characters, usually one of the many children heavily featured in the film. Compared to Pacific Rim, which featured satisfying action from start to finish, there is only one, short fight scene in the entire film. -There are far to many child actors in this film and most are terrible and cannot emote. The worst offenders are a little girl featured in the Hawaii sequence, and the main characters young son. This little boy is easily the worst part of the film due his unbelievably wooden delivery. -The films pacing is awkward. Slow for the majority, and then hyper- accelerated towards the end. 

In conclusion, the film is a mess that fails to deliver. It doesn't offer anything unique and proved to lack any satisfying Godzilla action. The staring human characters are vastly terrible and the film devolves into a crappy melodrama.

Originally posted 29/5/14 on IMDB.com