Halloween 2018

The Ritual (2017)

Saw this on Netflix. A good cross between The Descent and The Blair Witch Project (though not shot in the found footage format). Four Englishmen take a hiking trip in the remote hills of Sweden to honor the tragic killing of a friend. When they elect to take a "shortcut" through the woods (as one of the characters warns, "if a shortcut was a shortcut, it wouldn't be called a shortcut, it would be called a route"), they stumble across a pagan cult worshiping some ancient beast as a God. For a while, it seems mostly like all the baggage is just what the friends bring with them into the forest, but there really is something out there, and you do eventually get a good look at it in the end (in a climax that had me quoting Princess Mononoke: "I'm going to show you how to kill a god"). The cinematography is breathtaking - the beautiful setting goes a long way in establishing an atmosphere that is genuinely instilled with fear. I recommend it.

Temple (2017)

Three Japan-o-philes visit the land of the rising sun. The girlfriend is doing her thesis on religious studies. The boyfriend (who is kind of a prick) is mostly along for the ride. The third wheel is actually the most interesting character, and the only one who can speak Japanese. They quickly and conveniently stumble upon clues leading them to what must be the most haunted temple in Japan. There's a potentially interesting story in there about six kids who went missing, and the monk who was found living in the temple, but that's not what this movie is about - that's just background fodder for a gimmicky ghost story. Unfortunately, the acting is a bit wooden, and the writing leaves something to be desired. The creature(s?) are creepy, but the nighttime chase is just too dark (and there are too many shots pointed down the barrel of a flashlight, as opposed to the other way around). There's a novelty (for me, at least) to occult symbolism being associated with oriental spiritualism (as opposed to Christianity or paganism), but the various story threads don't really line up into a logical framework beyond "ghosts are creepy, right?" in the end (which came sooner than I expected). I'd like to see this story told with more substance and less fluff.

The Devil's Candy (2015)

Now this movie has style - and I do love a movie with style. Its taste in music is so good (a heavy metal cross-section of Pantera, Slayer, Metallica, even Sunn O))) - not music I typically listen to, but great for setting the mood of a horror movie), even the "trailer" music on Netflix had me hopping over to Youtube for more. The setup is recurrent of The Amityville Horror - a nice family moves into a house with a dark past, and their lives subsequently take a dark turn - but with a strong serial killer flavor - starring an older-than-I-remember Pruitt Taylor Vince. The cold open is so captivating - a Lizzie Borden/Jim Morrison singing The End-type situation, where a man gets up in the middle of the night and plays power chords on his electric guitar to drown out the Satanic voice in his head - I was instantly sold.

The protagonist family - a metalhead slash painter, his wife, and their teenage (also metalhead) daughter - are attractive and likable, and the movie is largely free of dumb clichés. When the Satanic element begins to manifest itself through art - the father's painting, provided by the real-life artist who's worked on some of Sunn O)))'s album covers - it's glorious. Did I mention this movie has style? It's terrifying - albeit, in less of a supernatural way than one might hope (on that note, it's telling that the killer watches a lot of fire-and-brimstone televangelist preachers; it's not hard to imagine it fueling the delusions of an impaired mind - though the preacher thinks he's helping people, by preying on their fears, he's only magnifying the horrors in the world; it is the height of irony that he, himself, is among the worldly devils he warns about) - culminating in a harrowing climax, but damn, it's not often that I have this much fun watching a horror movie! It just goes to show how powerful a movie can be when it's not just trying to tell a story, but aspiring to be a work of art in its own right. It's no wonder the music and painting plays such a critical role. This is the kind of movie I'd be proud to display on my shelf. (Even Black Phillip makes a cameo!)

Apostle (2018)

At over two hours long, this movie is an epic journey, with a plot that strongly resembles The Wicker Man. Around the turn of the century (last century), a man is sent undercover in his ailing father's stead to infiltrate a goddess-worshiping island cult and rescue his kidnapped sister. The first half plays a bit like Colonia in a colonial village with a medieval sense of justice. But at the halfway point (and I suppose this is a bit of a spoiler), it takes a very dark turn, with some supernatural elements, as the cult begins to implode from within. Most of the horror is human-generated, however, and it gets pretty gruesome. It's a sleek production, with good writing, solid leads, and ace cinematography. It's undoubtedly a tense viewing experience, but if that doesn't bother you, it's very well done.

"The promise of the divine is but an illusion."
"God is pain... is suffering... is betrayal."

P (2005)

The granddaughter of a witch leaves the Thai countryside to seek a living in Bangkok, where she uses her supernatural talents to navigate the sex trade - and get herself into trouble, when she loses control of her powers and a bloodthirsty monster is let loose on the city. It's fascinating to see different cultures take on particular subjects - like witchcraft - to see the similarities and differences in how they're interpreted across cultures. True to Bangkok's reputation, this is as much an erotic film as it is a horror film (and I have no complaints about that). In fact, it feels like three movies in one - a gritty, country-girl-meets-city-life coming-of-age drama gives way to a flesh-eating night stalker thriller, that eventually evolves into a Thai version of The Exorcist! Plus, it deserves an award for most captivating ending credits sequence - this film really knows how to keep the audience engaged through the credits. ;-)

Haunted (2018)

This is a short series available on Netflix - I view it as a sort of modern analog to Sightings. Six stories told in bite-size, 20-30 minute episodes, with dramatic re-enactments. Obviously, you can take "the following is a true story" with a grain of salt, but since none of these stories is designed to prove or disprove the existence of paranormal phenomena (this isn't science, this is entertainment), you might as well suspend your disbelief and take them at face value - they're certainly presented that way, told by the victims and eyewitnesses themselves in first person. Most of the tales lack a satisfying conclusion, but I think that contributes to the scariness, by leaving things hanging out there. Fair warning: you might want to watch this one with the lights on.

Here's what you can expect: in the first episode, a man is h(a)unted by a vengeful ghost, in a setup reminiscent of It Follows. The second episode is the story of the kids who grew up with a devil-worshipping serial killer father. Episode three takes a few pages from the Poltergeist playbook. Episode four is the most positive episode (relatively speaking), about a medium who awakens his gift after being contacted by three kids who died in a well. The fifth episode is your requisite alien abduction episode. And in episode six, a teenage girl's deadbeat boyfriend gifts her a stolen gravestone, so she dumps him and shacks up with the demon that's attached to it. (That description's not a fair reflection of the tone of the episode, but it's not inaccurate, and I couldn't resist describing it that way).

Discussion: it's almost more fascinating trying to think up a psychological explanation for these experiences*. I mean, assuming they're not fabricated whole cloth - obviously, I don't believe in ghosts and aliens (anymore), but I believe that these people (or, if they're actors, then others like them) have had experiences that defy conventional explanation. (To quote Scully from The X-Files, I believe that they believe - doubting their explanations isn't the same thing as denying their emotional experiences). I think it will be fascinating somewhere down the line, when we have a better grasp of how the human brain functions, to explore the physiological (and/or environmental) factors** that lead to things like hearing sounds and voices, seeing apparitions, etc. Just having had an episode of sleep paralysis once in my life, I've experienced the unbelievably realistic delusions the human mind can conjure when it's not functioning correctly, and the intense feelings (especially sheer terror) that can go along with that. Take mere suggestibility as a start. I don't believe in these things - these entities - yet thinking about them is enough to cause a palpable reaction of fear (accompanied by such physiological symptoms as goosebumps) in my mind and body. To quote The X-Files again, we have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception, yet we somehow brazenly declare that "seeing is believing".

*When some of the people in this show say things like "houses aren't haunted, people are haunted", or that spirits are "attached" to them, or when one person in a household experiences a lot of paranormal activity but others don't... this all could be interpreted as one person being "psychically open" or "empathically gifted" or some such, but it suggests to me the possibility that these could be the manifestations of an impaired mind (or an enhanced one, depending on your perspective).

**In both genetics and conditioning - as reinforced by The Devil's Candy, it always seems to be those with direct exposure to religious mythology (not always in the form of devotion - sometimes it's "inflicted" upon them by others) that interpret these experiences in such archetypal ways. To provide an example of this phenomenon, a schizophrenic who hears voices or feels presences will be more likely to interpret them as ghosts or demons if he's been taught to believe in things like pure evil and the immortal soul.

Tales of Halloween (2015)

It's fun to watch scary shows and horror movies during October, but I always like it when I get a chance to watch something that captures the true essence of Halloween - costume parties and jack o' lanterns and trick 'r treaters - on the holiday itself. Especially when I don't get a chance to get out there myself (and not being a kid anymore, that kind of depends on the whims of other families). That's one of the things I like about the early Treehouse of Horror episodes of The Simpsons. That's also part of what makes the slasher classic Halloween such a perennial favorite. So I saved Tales of Halloween for October 31st - an anthology of ten (very) loosely connected stories that occur on the night of All Hallow's Eve, very much in the vein of that other, more recent, Halloween classic, Trick 'r Treat.

I'll tell you straight up that it's not as good as Trick 'r Treat, but it wasn't a bad way to spend a Halloween night, cuddled up on the couch with a bag full of candy, after all the excitement of the day has wound down. The stories are more sequential and less interwoven than they were in Trick 'r Treat - occasionally a reference to one short will be made in another, and the trick 'r treaters who feature predominantly in one story are recycled in the others. To give you an idea of what to expect, here's a...well, short description of each of the shorts:

Sweet Tooth - An urban legend about a kid who will eat all your candy (even the pieces you've already eaten) comes to life.

The Night Billy Raised Hell - An unfortunate kid learns why it's a bad idea to egg the guy's house who never gives out candy. (spoiler: it's not because he doesn't know how to enjoy the holiday).

Trick - A group of kids decide they'd rather draw blood than receive candy from a group of adults spending the holiday under the influence (spoiler: that decision is entirely justified).

The Weak and the Wicked - A bullied kid attempts to summon a Halloween demon to exact vengeance on his (rather sadistic) bullies.

Grim Grinning Ghost - A fairly straightforward exercise in suspense, expectation, redirection, and jump scares, when a woman's car breaks down and she has to walk home after listening to ghost stories at a friend's house.

Ding Dong - A rather quirky segment, featuring some kind of demon lady who really wants children, and her soft-spoken mate, as they navigate the temptation of having children delivered right to their doorstep on Halloween.

This Means War - A short that seemed more interesting in its setup than its ultimate conclusion. Basically, a tale of one-upsmanship in the realm of decorating your house for the holiday.

Friday the 31st - An over-the-top, humorous parody of Friday the 13th, involving a costumed victim, a Jason rip-off, and, believe it or not, a UFO.

The Ransom of Rusty Rex - Two desperate would-be kidnappers get a whole lot more than they bargained for when they try to take a millionaire's trick 'r treating son hostage.

Bad Seed - a killer goes on a rampage during Halloween, but it takes the novel form of a sentient (and bloodthirsty) jack o' lantern. Kind of reminded me of Halloween III (the one without Michael Myers).

And there you have it - take it or leave it. I hope you've had a haunted holiday, and if I don't see you sooner, I imagine I'll meet you back here next Halloween!

A Bay of Blood (1971)

Going off of vague references to its reputation, and its cult status, I thought A Bay of Blood (a.k.a. Twitch of the Death Nerve, and about a dozen other alternate titles), by Italian director Mario Bava, was going to be some kind of ultraviolent bloodbath. In reality, it's pretty much just a European version of Friday the 13th (with partying "youngsters" getting killed off, and it's even got a harbinger in the form of a Tarot-reading gypsy). Not a rip-off, mind you - this movie predated the slasher craze by about a decade, and was a very strong influence on Friday the 13th, with its bay-side location, and at least one or two kills copied shot-for-shot.

It's interesting to note the differences between this film and the typical brainless slasher. The European influence counts for a lot - there is at least some emphasis on creating an artistic presentation, in the filming of the shots and also the music used. And the plot is remarkably grounded (if you've suffered through decades of brainless slashers), where the kills are motivated by actually realistic reasons - like securing a wealthy Countess' inheritance. And later, the not-yet-trope of a soon-to-be-victim getting offed shortly after being startled by discovering a dead body actually makes some sense - the body is not nailed to a door frame (for example) for shock value, but is accidentally discovered by an innocent bystander who must then be killed to preserve the killer's secret.

All of that having been said, it's still a slasher movie, and so it has a tendency to drag on, with minimal exposition (despite the convoluted plot), and not very well-developed characters (so many of which have a motivation to kill), all as an excuse to feature lots of gratuitous violence (and a little bit of gratuitous nudity). But without an intriguing hook - like a cannibal who wields a chainsaw and wears the faces of his victims, or an unstoppable bogeyman, or a man with finger knives who haunts your dreams, it feels terribly...mundane. But what can you expect from a pioneer that was breaking new ground? Unfortunately, the starkness of its allegedly gruesome brutality does not stand the test of time, considering everything we've seen since 1971 (the '80s alone puts this movie to shame). Still, it's an interesting glimpse into the evolution of the classic murder mystery into the modern slasher thanks in no small part to the introduction of (and subsequent change of focus to the) explicit gore fx. Plus, it's got a wickedly chilling ending.

Hidden (2009)

Note: This review is part of my coverage of Horrorfest IV.

Hidden

Now Hidden I liked a lot. It's the foreign film of the batch. (Note: British/Australian etc. films don't count as foreign only because their language is still English). Every Horrorfest has one film that's not in English. But unlike past years, this one is not Asian, but Norwegian. It's kind of convoluted (which I actually tend to like), but that means it reminds me of films like Crazy Eights, and The Abandoned - also because it's about a man who returns to the house of his childhood to uncover secrets from the past. There also tends to be at least one doppelganger film in every Horrorfest, and this year I think I'd have to split that honor between this film and Lake Mungo. Here, it's not really clear whether the doppelganger is really that, or something else, but then, a lot of doppelganger stories tend to be subtle and suggestive, and not easily pinned down, don't they?

This film has a very intriguing plot. It all revolves around an abusive mother. Her son escapes one night, and while running through the woods, causes a truck to crash into a car by the side of the road, killing another little boy's parents. The son apparently escapes, only to return decades later when his mother has finally died, and he inherits the house. The house appears to be haunted - or is someone still living there? What happened to the little boy whose parents were killed is a bit of a mystery. The cops were convinced that he fell off a cliff into a huge (and very beautiful) waterfall in those woods, after wandering around the night of the crash that killed his parents. Yet there's also some speculation that -

I might be spoiling a little bit here, but I think it helps to talk this stuff out, since the film is less than completely clear - but if you don't want to be spoiled, you might want to skip ahead to the next film.

There's also some speculation that the boy may have been captured by the abusive mother and taken in place of the son who escaped. Is he still alive, after all these years, living in that house? But whether or not there really is a second individual, is under suspicion. And the true identity of the man who returns to the house is also unclear. What really happened that night of the crash? I'm not even sure myself, after seeing the movie. It's one of those films where the credits roll and you're still left guessing at this and that. Which is good fun, if you ask me, but I hate when there's not really an answer key. I like to be given clues and have time to work theories out and such, but when the right answer is left open-ended, it leaves me feeling like, "well, if there's no 'right' answer, then why bother trying to find it?" And if there are clues leading to alternate conclusions, and neither one is necessarily correct, well... Interpretation is a great thing, but I think it would be interesting to know what the director/writer intended.

Great film, though. Good atmosphere. Captivating characters. Beautiful (and also creepy) environment. I like the mood and the tone of the film. And it makes you think, which is always a plus in my book. It would probably frustrate a lot of people (even me, to some extent), but I really liked it.

7 Days (2010)

French Title: Les 7 jours du talion

So, I had a chance to watch this movie, but it was lacking any subtitles, and the language is in French. Normally, I would have waited for an opportunity to get subtitles, but I had already settled in to watch the film, and I said "to hell with it". As it turns out, the film was pretty easy to follow anyway. I may have missed the subtler points of the plot, but the basic outline, and the emotions (and motivations) of the characters were all pretty straightforward, particularly considering the basic premise - father of a murdered child abducts the murderer and subjects him to 7 days of brutal revenge torture.

It's a very tense and disturbing film. I don't know what part of it had to do with the fact that I wasn't paying much attention to the dialogue (since I couldn't understand most of it), but I spent a lot of the movie thinking about what I was seeing, the implications of the plot that was being handed to me, and ended up typing up some thoughts during viewing, which I'll share with you here in lieu of a standard review. These thoughts largely deal with the ramifications a movie such as this one has in the larger cultural environment, an issue that leaves me feeling a little cold with movies like this in general, and this one in particular. The film claims not to judge its characters' actions, and this seems to be true, but this is unsettling, because with this kind of behavior, you're left thinking that something ought to be said about it...

Let's begin.


Scene: Residential home. Two parents are speaking with the police. Their young daughter has just gone unexpectedly missing.

This is a terrifying situation. A happy family instantly plunged into anxiety and - if their greatest fears are realized - despair. Worst of all, the missing person is a young girl, a beautiful treasure, a child with her whole life ahead of her. To think of that life taken away, and what's more, to think of what that innocent child may be made to suffer before that, is enough to drive one to madness.

This is a terrifying situation. A nightmare. As an observer, the most reasonable reaction is fear. A strong feeling of repulsion. We must not let this happen. We must do everything in our power to prevent this possibility in our own lives - to our own children. We must protect them - even to the point of stifling them - because, think of the alternative!

This is a reasonable reaction. However, this type of occurrence is fortunately extremely rare. Yes, it is terrible, and exposing ourselves to it can help us learn to take certain precautions to reduce its probability, and better prepare ourselves to deal with it should the worst happen. But dwelling on it, and feeding the fear without restraint, is also dangerous. It is not healthy to live in fear constantly, nor is it healthy to stifle a child's natural growth - and their expanding measure of independence - for fear of what could happen.

When the worst does happen, we think, "what could I have done to prevent it? I should have been more careful." But there's no way to be 100% safe - there is always a risk. When the terrible happens, it is incredibly unfortunate, but it is a sad fact of life that life is not fair. Restricting our freedoms little by little is not a solution. We must learn to take the necessary precautions, yet also learn to know when so-called protections are doing more harm than good.


Scenario: The worst case. Young girl, 8, is abducted. She is raped. And she is killed.

This is a truly heinous crime. This girl was pretty. She was full of life. It sickens me that somebody could do this sort of thing. To anyone, let alone to a child. But what also sickens me is how anyone could think that this sort of thing had anything at all to do with love (the father's revenge seems to suggest this possibility, of love inspiring brutality, and that contributes to my condemnation of his actions - if true, he is as sick as the killer). Or even that it was primarily motivated by sex. Sex does not presuppose violence. The sex drive does not activate a willingness to rape, much less kill. Only a truly twisted individual could commit a crime like this, or an individual affected by extreme circumstances. Granted, a person who seeks out children will have no outlet, and may be driven to desperate actions, but even then, a very small minority will resort to such a perversion of love as this. And those types were bound to be dangerous from the start.

On the other hand, someone for whom children brightens his life, would want to preserve the life of a child, not destroy it. Contribute to her happiness, not her pain. To call this guy a "pedophile rapist" is to miss the boat. This guy is a serial killer, pure and simple. He makes pedophiles look bad, he even makes rapists look bad - most rapists don't kill their victims. You could describe him as a rapist because he rapes his victims, and you could describe him as a pedophile to indicate that the victims he rapes and then kills are children (assuming he picks children to be his victims due to their sexual desirability - otherwise he wouldn't be a "pedophile rapist" but simply a "child rapist"), but it's not the fact that he's a pedophile that sets him apart from the rest of civilized society. It's the fact that he kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and kills children, that makes him a truly loathsome character.


Consider: Vigilantism.

When you take the law into your own hands, you are no longer acting in accordance with the law. You become one with the criminal. We have fair trials because guilt is difficult to ascertain, and because we understand that human emotion does not wait for reason - but that it can be wrong. This is why we do not shoot first, and ask questions later.

I can understand the anger. But I cannot understand the desire to continue the cycle of hatred. To continue the cycle of violence, of sadism, of torture. There is punishment, and then there is wallowing in the very evil that has destroyed you. This is not rising above, this is becoming what you hate and what you fear. This is not vanquishing evil, this is propagating it. For one who has been so hurt by evil, how could you allow it to continue - spurred on by your own hands!

It is one thing to wish, to sentence, to condemn, but another to become the very agent of destruction. There are healthier ways to vent anger.


This is a very sadistic film. Well made, and it successfully transmits the sense of pain, but I cannot recommend it to anyone, it is just too sadistic. Except, perhaps, those who may find themselves in such a situation where they are considering such vigilante action, or feel the need to vent related frustrations. Hopefully, this film will turn you off of any idea of putting such plans into action. And if it doesn't, then I really fear for your well-being (and that of those you may turn your hatred toward). I understand the pain, but there is no justification for sadism of this level. If we allow this sort of thing to occur, no matter how "warranted" we might think it is, then we are no better than the original criminals, and thus we have given up our claim to righteous authority. It is a no-win path to follow. No win for any of us, including those of us who have not yet been victimized. If not for yourself, then for the decency of better humanity. The moment you become one of them, you tip the balance ever so slightly in their favor.


Consider: Violence for entertainment.

This film is torture porn. The popular comparison is the Hostel films. But the Hostel films didn't disturb me as much as this film does. Why? What was Hostel's goal: to disturb, or to entertain? In the case of violence as entertainment - particularly on the gore/horror extreme end of the spectrum (in contrast to PG-rated action movie violence) - the distinction may be vague. In the gorror realm, being disturbed is entertainment. But something about the violence in this movie feels fundamentally more unsettling. It feels more real. It feels more...violent. The violence is deplorable, it is disgusting, there isn't even a fantasy side of me that thinks it is in some way deserving, or in any way pleasing.

In a different story, a major character is tortured to within inches of his life, with the sadistic torturer gaining pleasure from his ability to keep the victim alive, in order to allow maximum savoring of the pain. Then, it was entertainment, a brilliant plot point. Delightfully devilish. Here, it is repulsive.

There, it was a plot point. Here, you are a participant in the torture. The torture is not a device to amplify the cruelty of the villain, it is not a test of endurance for the hero, here it instead amplifies the cruelty of the man you are supposed to be identifying with, and supporting. The man you are supposed to be able to feel sympathy for. And this is truly unsettling.

What is the responsibility for violence in films? There is an argument that desensitization to fantasy violence is a bad thing. Real life violence is horrendous compared to movie violence. Do we have a social responsibility to depict violence as it really is, so that people are truly disgusted by it, and do not glorify it instead? I think there is a place for sensational fantasy violence. I like violence that is more stylistic than realistic. It has an aesthetic quality, and I suppose it's further removed from real violence which is in no way appealing. But what is the purpose of depicting realistic violence in movies? What is the purpose of being disgusted as entertainment? If there is an argument to be made for people being turned off of violence via realistic violence in movies, perhaps this movie is a prime candidate.

I would be at least a little concerned about anyone who enjoyed the violence in this movie. (While still allowing for the fact that it is a fantasy, and not real.)


I don't know what you could possibly do to soothe the grief, other than wait, and be patient. But I know that torturing another human being sadistically, whether they've got it coming or not, is not the answer.


Closing comments:

So, yeah, the guy couldn't stop the girl's injuries from bleeding (in his mind), no matter how many times he tried to wash them. Though, considering his treatment of the other guy, he's not the best guy to go to to stop any kind of pain. You think? And that deer just keeps coming back. Yeah. Revenge doesn't get you anywhere. You're just wallowing in the despair and contributing to the madness. It doesn't help.


And the people who defend the torture in this film. Those are the people that really sicken me. It's amazing, but there are people who defend this man's actions to the letter. I only hope to god their bark is worse than their bite. Or else this is an even darker world than I thought. The irony of it all doesn't make it any easier to swallow.


I just can't rate this. It's a powerful film, but I'm not sure what its intent was, and I can't really recommend it to anyone.

Oh, what the hell.

Rating: For sadists (and emotional masochists) only.

A Serbian Film (2010)

I didn't go looking for this film, but when it was pointed out to me, I knew I had to see it. I'm drawn to controversy. And I'm interested in the way that cultures depict the extremes of human civilization. Not purely for entertainment value, though there may be some of that too, but for the intellectual fascination it provides. We talk about normality all the time, but the way we talk about the monsters and demons and specters among us is what really tells us who we are.

A quick look at the plot synopsis reveals that this movie is about a retired porn star who takes one last job for an art film that turns out to actually be a snuff film, allegedly involving elements of necrophilia and pedophilia. But the most shocking thing (and considering the plot keywords, that's saying a lot) is that it's actually a good movie! Judging from its description, I thought it was going to be trash, but I figured it was worth seeing to find out what, if anything, it had to say about the extremes of human nature, and because the idea of a film revolving around a porn star happens to interest me.

But get this: it's a good story. The characters are believable, and are acted well. And while a large portion of the movie depends on shock & gore, even that part maintains a sense of mystery - putting the pieces together, leaving you wondering just where it will all end. And before we get to that part, the suspense is palpable. From reading the description, you know you're in for a wild ride, but it starts out slow. You get the sense of, "I don't know what's going to happen, but it could be anything", and that's really creepy in a movie. When you don't know just how far the director is willing to go, there's a sense of uncertainty, and a lack of control. With most films, you can expect a certain level of intensity. Other films surprise you with something you hadn't anticipated. With a film like this, you know it's going to get rough, but you can only imagine what's in store.

The characterization of the porn star is very respectable, which earns points in my book. He's not stigmatized by what he does (not by the people close to him at least), his wife isn't jealous, and he has an honest but considerate approach towards his young son's questions about his work. The art director, who turns out to be undeniably insane, starts out rather reasonable, with some great insights about art, and how pornography can be lifted to an art form. (It's too bad he has such little concern, or rather, such intense enthusiasm, for the suffering of others). And the porn star's reactions to the shady art director's offer are very believable. He's suspicious, but he needs the money. He proceeds cautiously, and when things get too sketchy, he tries to back out. Unfortunately for him, he's already in too deep.

My favorite part of the film is the first couple days of the shoot for the art film. The major stipulation of the deal is that the porn star is to know nothing about the shoot - he must simply show up, follow instructions, and do his porn star best. So there's a whole lot of mystery. What will he be asked to do, and how will he react to it? Since the character has been humanized, you can empathize with him, and you know his reactions will be humane and likely on par with yours. The first day, they start shooting at an orphanage. Instantly, you feel uneasy. What are they doing there, of all places? There are a couple of women - a nurse, and a mother - plus a young girl. You feel concern at where the narrative is headed. Things get more and more uncomfortable. The suspense here is intense. Then the shit hits the fan and all hell breaks loose.

With all the suspense and the hype (yes, one person saying "this looks intense" counts as hype to me), I was wondering if the film would deliver the horror in the end, and I must say, it most certainly did. Very psychologically damaging, above all the gore and violent sex. And a very depressing ending. I do not know much about Serbia, but I've read that this film is something of an allegorical tale about its history. Something about its people being forced to do heinous things, and treated in kind. I knew nothing of this while watching the film, and still enjoyed the film immensely. Knowing this after the fact increases my appreciation for the film - that there is symbolism and meaning behind it, that there is a point for the extreme nature of it.

I cannot recommend this film to just anyone, simply for its graphic nature, which I know not everyone will be able to stomach. But neither would I advise nobody to see it (which in my case only attracts my curiosity), as I have seen others do. You must be able to get over the extreme nature of the film - specifically, the graphic sexual violence (and make no mistake, the sexual perversion in this film - a topic I have quite a bit of interest in - has little to do with anything other than brutal sadism, both physically and psychologically). But if you can, this is a very competent piece of film-making. Among other exploitation and shock-gorror flicks, this is a film of quality that stands out.

Voices (2007)

Note: This review is part of my coverage of Horrorfest III.

Voices

I didn't even realize until it started, but Voices is a Korean film. I forgot that Horrorfest so far has always had a token Asian horror. And yet, despite being the token Asian horror, Voices was a great film (i.e., it deserves its spot and is not just there to fill a quota). A good supernatural thriller. One thing is certain when it comes to Asian horror - those Asians understand frightening imagery. I don't know that Voices is all that scary a film, in the traditional sense, but there were certain scenes that gave me chills - unlike any of these other horror titles I've been watching.

And I have to say, I'm partial to the Japanese, but let's get real, Asian schoolgirls are Asian schoolgirls no matter which side of the sea you're on.

So, the idea of this one is that people who love each other are killing each other for some reason. The reason has to do with some sort of supernatural curse. At the risk of spoilage, the curse comes in the form of a boy, who quite creepily looks the part - he's normal enough that you don't suspect that he's not human, but something in his eyes tells you that he's not quite normal, either. He's like the devil in a tux kind of character. And as the curse, in simple terms, he's more or less an embodiment of Jealousy.

You know it yourself. Think of the people you care for. There have been times when they upset you or worry you or whatever and you find yourself wishing them harm. Well, Jealousy, if we can call him that, merely feeds on those wishes and amplifies them. It's clear that he's an aid to all the wild murders and suicides going on, but he does a pretty damn good job of tormenting his targets by reminding them that he only gave them the knife (or other implement of doom) - they were the ones that committed the acts. Very diabolical, indeed.

The details of the story revolve around one particular schoolgirl and her family. She fences, in case that interests you. The rest you can pick up if you watch the film. We never really figure out the reason behind the curse - where this Jealousy character came from, but I don't think that's really all that important, because the film leaves you with that uncertain feeling, that maybe Jealousy really exists, and that we ought to be careful with those dangerous wishes we have, lest they consume us and we become another of the unthinkable tragedies that frequently pop up on the news.