Blue Velvet (1986)

“See that clock on the wall? 

In five minutes you are not going to believe what I've told you.”

When Jeffrey Beaumont discovers a severed human ear in a field, it opens a gateway into the dark underworld of his small suburban town.

Watching a David Lynch film is always an experience. Whether it be 'Lost Highway', 'Mulholland Drive', ‘Eraserhead' or 'Blue Velvet’, he has the ability to transport you to parts of your subconscious that you never knew you could reach. You are drawn into a dizzying world that is so surreal yet totally believable in the world he presents to you. 

'Blue Velvet' is a dark film. It’s dark in it’s look, in it’s characters, in it’s plot and it really crawls under your skin long after the credits have rolled. Definitely not for the faint of heart… What I found really interesting in Blue Velvet is that I never know whether or not to laugh, cringe or look away at any given moment. It’s such a dark balance that makes you question everything you are feeling and watching. It’s an unusual blend of a twisted love story with a mystery entangled in a suspenseful horror.

What I find really engaging about ‘Blue Velvet’ is the mystery of it. We follow Jeffrey Beaumont as he turns amateur sleuth alongside Sandy as they try and figure out what exactly is going on underneath the perfect little town they live in. We are given clues and small pieces of the puzzle as we take a look into a world that you shouldn’t really dare look into. We pull back the curtain just enough to see the monsters hiding behind it and, just like Jeffrey, we are sucked in against our will, powerless.

There are some scenes that will be burned onto your memory that you won’t be able to forget for a long time. You start in a dream and slowly slip into a nightmare that is relentless. That’s what I admire about ‘Blue Velvet’, it’s unapologetic and unflinching look at the bizarre that’ll take you to the extremes in each character. The film isn’t afraid to push the envelope and dares you to try and look away.

Dennis Hopper plays the terrifying, unrelenting Frank Booth, one of the great screen villains. He is so unbalanced that you never know what he is going to do next.You thought The Joker was a badass? You ain’t seen nothing yet kid. When Frank Booth gets going, the sinister weirdness in his character will (excuse the blatant cliche) send chills up your spine and keep you on your toes throughout. Let’s just say, you’ll never look at a gas canister the same way again…

Songs are used in the film to flip our perception of events and completely turn them on their head. We are treated to a bizarre mime of Roy Orbison’s “In Dreams” from Dean Stockwell that’ll have you squirming in your seat.

I don’t think it’s easy to fully comprehend Blue Velvet on a first viewing, I still don’t think I fully understand it and I’ve seen it many times. This being the case, it’s so refreshing to have a piece of film making that challenges you to look deeper into the film and deeper into yourself. It’s more of an experience than a normal viewing. It deals with so many different ideas and emotions and takes you on a gritty, sexual, mysterious journey that will leave you breathless. You feel dirty as you become the voyeur, watching and observing.

Despite everything I’ve just said, you might absolutely hate it… Probably not the best way to summarise a review but I always believe that you either love or hate David Lynch’s films. You either get them or you just don’t. 

I think that either way you swing on the argument, you’ll experience something watching Blue Velvet and be able to take something away from it. Which is what real art should do. It shouldn’t just be a money devouring tool to make you buy popcorn and fill multiplexes, it should allow you to transcend the mundane and take you to places that you never knew you could go... Then again, maybe I’m just being a hopeless romantic.

It’s hard to put into words what Blue Velvet is about because it changes from person to person. The only advice I can give is just turn down the lights, turn up the volume and open your mind to a new type of movie-going experience.

A classic that never gets old and only gets better with age. Although, the same can't be said for the trailer unfortunately... I always miss the gruff voiced narrator guy. 
Where did he go? Maybe thats the real mystery...

Dracula Untold (2014)

"Men don't fear swords. They fear monsters."

The untold story of a story that’s been flogged to death already…

The film, on a whole, wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be.

Probably not the response the filmmakers went for with this one but in truth, with modern cinema cluttered with so many re-imaginings, prequels, sequels and trilogies, I wasn’t expecting much from it. I’d love to see that featured as a review on the poster, the filmmakers desperately trying to drag the audience in to see another retelling of a vampire story -

Facing threats to his kingdom and his family from the Turks, Vlad Tepes makes a deal with a demonic force to help him save his kingdom - whilst trying to avoid succumbing to the darkness himself...

The biggest issue I had with the film was the fact that, being a prequel to Dracula, there was no tension. The whole conflict of the movie is whether or not he can survive three days without drinking human blood to save his kingdom otherwise he will become the monster forever. The main problem with this is that, sorry to spoil Dracula for anyone who has been living under a rock for the last century, we all know that Dracula is a vampire. This causes a real roadblock for the rest of the film because any tension they are trying to create with the "will-he-won’t-he" situation is diffused because we know the end result. This wouldn’t have been such a problem if it didn’t focus too much on the predicament of the three day blood rule but it’s a major plot point. If they had shifted the focus onto how he became Dracula rather than will he turn into Dracula it may have saved it. I feel that if they hadn’t given it the title 'Dracula Untold’ and revealed his real identity at the end as a sort of twist in the tale then it could have been a more tense and exciting film for the audience.

Most will know Luke Evans from his role as Bard in ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’. He does a really good job playing Dracula and after thinking about it, I can’t name another actor who could have played the role better so credit to him. With a name like “Vlad the impaler” you have to be a pretty hardcore dude and Luke Evan’s makes you believe he is a decorated warrior and leader. When it’s all going down, Vlad is definitely the guy who you’d not want to see coming at you with something that might impale you. Just saying.

This being said, his character lacks a large amount of common sense. This is going to sound like a spoiler but trust me it’s not - we see Vlad kicking some serious Turk ass with his new dark powers so when the army is coming to destroy his kingdom (as we see from the trailer) I can’t help but feel like he should just go and take them all out? We know what he is capable of but we spend a good chunk of the film with him waiting around for them to reach him, why doesn’t he just be proactive and meet them? It’s dark, there’s no sun and he’s against the clock so why risk it all waiting around?

Charles Dance plays the master vampire that Vlad makes his deal with and, despite not being able to talk properly with his false teeth in, he really delivers a strong performance as the tormented and dangerous force in Vlad’s kingdom. I enjoyed the mythology of his origins which was ironic as I was more interested in that than in the origins of Dracula that I was watching…

The special effects were impressive, which is something I will rarely specifically point out but most of them are done really well that it’s hard not to be swept up in the spectacle. There is a scene in the film (that you see in the trailer) with an almighty horde of bats that Dracula can command, this scene was exciting because we see the full potential of Dracula’s powers as he crashes into the Turkish army. This is a side you don’t really see of Dracula which, good or bad, was interesting as you begin to explore the full extent of the prince of darkness’ powers.

The fashion in “re-imagining” a story in Hollywood is wearing thin nowadays. How vampires are depicted in the modern stories are so detached from what they were originally. Vampires are horrific, terrifying walkers of the night that nowadays either sparkle or hold a machine gun… I long for the day when we see a real horror masterpiece going back to the roots of what makes vampires scary. Not a re-imagining, not a prequel or with a “modern twist". A real 'back to basics’ telling of the Dracula legend. When we look at the 1931 telling of Dracula today, we get a flavour of what could be done with it today. What was done 83 years ago is still haunting today and puts to shame most of what has been released in the proceeding years since.

Overall, if you’ve seen the trailer then you haven’t missed much not seeing the film, everything you need is in there anyway. I think that if you enjoy vampire films, a bit of action and you have some time to kill then it will keep your attention for the duration and this is how I felt coming out of this film. I didn’t want to demand my money back and I was pleasantly entertained but I can’t see myself rushing out to purchase my own copy. 

Not a film to sink your teeth into... as it were.

Annabelle (2014)

"I like your dolls."

In an age where most horror films rely on jump scares and recycled plots comes ‘Annabelle'… Which, unfortunately, is no exception to the rest.

Based in the same world as the surprisingly good ‘The Conjuring’, ‘Annabelle' tells the story of a haunted doll that terrorises a family and their baby after a home invasion by satanic cultists. It basically acts as a prequel to ‘The Conjuring’ but doesn’t really deliver the same way ‘The Conjuring' does.

Before I dive into Annabelle I’d like to just say that what disappoints me about modern horror films is that they all look, sound and scare the same. Unlike classic horror films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Halloween’, ‘Alien’, ’Psycho’, ‘The Shining’ etc., horror films of today tend to rely too heavily on jump scares and less on the story telling and visceral horror that actually scares people. Classic horror films can scare you in a way that you sometimes can’t even explain, making you turn on a comedy and not look outside afterwards.

If you’ve seen ‘The Conjuring’ or even the trailer for ‘Annabelle' you’ll know about "the doll". Let’s face it, it’s a spooky little bitch. It’s twisted in an almost carnival/theatrical like way with piercing eyes and a long white dress.
This begs the question though, why on earth would any husband in their right mind buy this for their pregnant wife in the first place?
Gaping plot hole aside, let’s talk about the back-story. The doll is crow barred into the plot beyond belief. The entire reasoning behind it being haunted is so flimsy that it just flags up the main issue with the film for me which is that it’s not thought all the way through. It feels like the plot has been built around the fact that it’s the creepy looking doll that everyone liked from ‘The Conjuring’ so how many times can the audience jump at it in a movie of it’s own. It’s just lazy and unoriginal. It wouldn’t be so bad if the movie didn’t take itself seriously like the recent ‘Evil Dead’ remake (which smashed it out of the park) but it really underestimates the audience. The audience is just spoon-fed exactly what is expected with a few good jump scares to glaze over the fact that it’s a weak film.

What would have been a lot more interesting to watch would have been the satanic cult that the two home invaders were a part of and to see more detail about the mythology of the doll and the demon. After all it is a prequel. Instead, the back-story is rushed and not fully explained.

The cast is passable. The young couple aren’t relatable or even likable but they serve their purpose in the film. Probably the best performance comes from the baby who is adorable to watch and doesn’t even realise what’s going on.

All of this being said, what Annabelle actually delivers quite effectively is a whole lot of tension. Director John R. Leonetti has absolute control over the build up and atmosphere to the point where nearly everyone in the audience is looking through their fingers and giggling in hysteria at the immanent scare to come. Therein lies the problem, we all know it’s coming and have seen it before in another form. We aren’t scared of the movie, we are scared to jump out of our seats. I’m not saying that is a particularly bad thing but it’s not a horror in the truest sense. It doesn’t get under your skin like a real toe curling horror should.
There are a few key scenes in the film that make it a passable horror film, in particular a scene involving a broken elevator and a whole lot of darkness… I’ll say no more. Also, a scene that’s ruined in the trailer, when the little girl runs at the door as it’s closing, only to burst through it as the satanic woman who was one of the pair who invaded the couples home. This would have been great if it wasn’t so prominent in the trailer, I knew it was coming so the tension was fizzled out.

Should this be all we expect from a horror? A few good jump scares and a creepy doll?

Should we demand higher standards? The 2012 demonic scare-fest ‘Sinister’ was a real step in the right direction for horror, blending all the best aspects of the “found-footage” genre with a traditional narrative that comes together in a twisted little horror film that stays with you. This is the direction that horror films of today should be heading, back to the roots of what scares us. Visceral and nightmarish images that will haunt you even after the lights go up in the cinema.

Ultimately ‘Annabelle’ isn’t a well thought out piece of masterful horror film-making, however, it does deliver some decent scares and will keep your attention if you don’t take it seriously. It’s nothing new in the horror genre and I can’t see myself ever watching it again. Maybe take someone who is particularly jumpy for a good laugh but ‘Annabelle’ should have and could have been a better film. Despite this, I still don’t think I’d have that doll sitting on a shelf in my room… Just in case.

Gone Girl (2014)

"I will practice believing my husband loves me but I could be wrong."

From the visionary storyteller that gave us unforgettable films like ‘Se7en’, ‘The Game’, ‘Panic Room’, ‘Fight Club’, ‘Zodiac’ and ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ now comes ‘Gone Girl’, another instant classic to add to David Fincher's impressive repertoire of films.

I don’t like to use the term “visionary” to describe a director as it seems to be a word that’s thrown around too likely in trailers and posters nowadays but when it comes to David Fincher it is the best word to describe him as a filmmaker.

The guy just makes really sexy movies.

‘Gone Girl’ was a film that I anticipated ever since the trailer quietly sneaked into cinemas a few months ago. I hadn't read the book so didn't quite know what to expect but what drew me to the trailer was it’s enigmatic structure, unusual cast and dark cinematography. I thought to myself - “looks like a David Fincher film” and lo and behold Fincher’s name crops up at the end of the trailer.

Despite the two and a half hour running time, it doesn’t feel it. There is so much information being dumped on you with so many twists and turns that you don’t have time to think about the time. Although, you’ll feel the two and a half hours as the credits roll and you have to wake up two numb cheeks...

Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne who, after the disappearance of his wife Amy (played by the fantastic Rosamund Pike), finds himself in the spotlight as her suspected killer.

For me, the film is all about perception.

How we perceive the characters in the film is affected throughout as we receive new information about the events and the characters backgrounds.  Just as you think you've got it, your perception is altered again. Information that you receive may point you in one direction but when you take a second look actually appears a little suspicious... We are constantly one step behind which makes for a really engaging watch. 

The media plays a very important role in the plot as how the media perceives Nick Dunne influences him as a character and those around him.

What I really enjoyed about Ben Affleck’s performance as Nick Dunne is that you never really know what to believe. Affleck plays it perfectly with just the right amount of smugness and innocence, is he guilty? Or is he, to put it bluntly, just a bit of an asshole? Fincher walks along that thin line to keep you constantly guessing and judging him, much like how the media and the police are. The audience become detectives as we scrutinise every move that Nick makes and try and piece together what’s happening without all the facts. Fincher hides details from us in misdirection and plot twists to divert us from what is really happening.

I don’t really want to go into too much detail about Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne, the mysterious wife that no one really knows what happened to, but what I can say is that she’s astounding in the role. An actress that I can’t really say I’ve seen a lot but I can tell you that she plays the role perfectly. It probably works in her favour that she’s not extremely well known, there aren’t any preconceived opinions on her as a character.

There is an interesting blend of humour to counterbalance the darkness in the story which is so refreshing to watch. Tension is created by humour and tension is also dispelled with the humour, which makes for an unusual dynamic that is always interesting in a David Fincher film.

There is a real flare in the cinematography from Jeff Cronenweth who shot ‘Fight Club’ and ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ with Fincher. There’s a constant contrast of light and dark to reflect the mysterious and enigmatic plot. This is also true of Nick and Amy Dunne who aren't as black and white as the audience, the media and the police see them. Fincher uses a handful of extremely skilled cinematographers and always seems to have a solid continuity in the style of his films which is a testament to him as a director and shows the quality of the cinematographers that he surrounds himself with.

All that can be said before going in to see ‘Gone Girl’ is to pay close attention to the details, not everything is as is seems and the smallest piece of information that might seem throwaway is just as important as the clues that are right in front of your face. 

Overall, ‘Gone Girl’ is an intelligent mystery/thriller that will keep you engaged and make you think. Having respect for the audience’s intelligence makes the film enjoyable and intriguing which gives it the freedom to have a little fun playing with the viewer.

See ‘Gone Girl’ before you stumble across a spoiler or two… or three… or four…