Film Reviews: Cut The Strings, I Wouldn't Bother [Cassadaga, 2011]

Cassadaga (2011)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a mature nature].

During the month of October, I elected to post a horror film a day on my Instagram (aptly hashtagged "spoopy month"), which is a tradition I started last year in order to recommend niche horror films to my followers. Whilst traipsing my rolodex of horror this year, I recalled a film from a while back called Cassadaga (2011), and felt it was probably time to give it a second viewing.

It is unfortunate when you rewatch a horror film and find it to be lacklustre, and that was sadly the case for this film. Let's start with the first 60 seconds of the film, which were so insanely problematic that I'm almost ashamed to admit that I didn't realise it until I rewatched. 

We are introduced to the main antagonist as a child: a young boy playing with a porcelain, marionette doll and donning a cute, pink dress. Cue the parent coming in to cut up the dress and smash the doll, berating her son for dressing up as a girl: now, this maybe wouldn't have been such a problem if it was purely an allegory to being a transgender child, however (contextually) this is about a boy who grows up to become a serial killer. The film is heavily suggesting that the boy's dysphoria and mental instability/bloodlust is intrinsically linked, a dangerous and unforgivingly cliche for transgender characters.

No, the film does not explicitly depict the boy as transgender, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is what they were going for. Perhaps it is a homage to other films who have used this method, such as Psycho (1960) or Calvaire (2004), but either way it's problematic and arguably unnecessary. If you think dysphoria is a motivation for murder, then perhaps you should do some more research on your subject. 

Jumping forward somewhat, and staying on the subject of explicitness, the film has a difficult time letting the viewer draw their own deductions. In the first two minutes of the runtime, our protagonist suffers a personal tragedy with her sister being hit by a bus. I'm aware this is supposed to make us immediately empathise with the character, and we are given flashbacks after the fact, but slapping a character death on the viewer so early on in the narrative (and then giving us flashbacks doused in expositional dialogue) is incredibly lazy and unimaginative. We aren't given time to understand the relationship between these characters, why it's so inexplicably tragic that the sister has died: we're just given the basic formula of character + tragedy = jumpstart for the narrative. 

Another example is that the writers tried to misdirect the audience to believe that Thomas' character (played by Lucas Beck) is the serial killer, when it is in fact a different one. This isn't especially new but the best plot twists are often the simplest: however, Cassadaga did not execute this in a successful fashion. We are given scenes of Thomas masturbating to violent pornography, withdrawn and rarely seen in most of the film, as if to say "hey look! It's totally this guy! The weirdo no one sees!"

If you're too on the nose with your misdirection, you more often than not end up arousing more suspicion within the viewer than intended. Sure, I thought nothing of it when Thomas' grandmother (played by Louise Fletcher, of all people!) stated that people rarely saw him, but the moment that they showed him pleasuring himself to taboo porn was the moment that it clicked that the film was trying to throw me off and convince me that he was the murderer, which clearly he wasn't. 

I will say that this film had moments of brilliance. One example in particular is the first shot we see of Gepetto (the serial killer) in his workshop, overly saturated and industrial in its presentation. It felt very gritty and the scenes of him experimenting on women and turning them into human marionette dolls were wonderfully disturbing, albeit only taking up a few moments here and there throughout the runtime (which I found slightly disappointing, but I'm just a sucker for gruesome, bodily dismemberment in films). 

I even liked what the film was going for, blending supernatural and psychological horror together with the introduction of a ghost character called Jennifer (played by Amy LoCicero): the ghost is of one Gepetto's victims who eventually leads the protagonist, Lily (played by Kelen Coleman) to the true identity of the serial killer. It drives the narrative along but still maintains its creep factor, giving us more than one evil to focus on. 

However, I can't say much for the rest of the film. A glaring problem I had after watching it again was the plot holes, and I genuinely believe that this film relies on logic where deemed necessary. One example is that Gepetto (who is revealed to be the gardener, Christian, played by Rus Blackwell) mentions Jennifer to the protagonist early on in the film...why? I understand that this is probably an attempt to misdirect Lily (and us, the audience) but I can't quite understand why Christian would mention Jennifer in the first place: in doing so, the protagonist starts to look into her mysterious disappearance, eventually deducting that the ghost haunting her is the same woman. But if Christian had never mentioned it, it's likely that she would've never made that connection. 

Another example is that when kidnapping his victims, Christian poses as a wheelchair-bound man with his face covered, and throws his voice so that his victims turn around and he can launch from his chair to chloroform them. At first, I wasn't sure how he was doing this: I've heard of people being able to project their voices and make them sound like they're coming from a different source. But in the third act of the film, it's a female voice that can be heard, not his. So is this a ghost? Or can he magically alter his voice to sound nothing like his? Is he supernatural?

Sadly, we never really find this out. We also never find out why, in some scenes and not others, the Jennifer ghost can be seen by more than one character. And this is perhaps the largest issue with Cassadaga: it wants to be clever and subvert your expectations, but remains inconsistent in the application of its own logic. Intriguing an audience, though, means that they pay closer attention, therefore I'd argue that you cannot afford to skimp out on important details or plot points in a desperate attempt to hurl down the train tracks of your plot without putting too much thought into it. 

In conclusion, dear reader, I would recommend skipping out on this one. You cannot fault a film for trying to be inventive and clever, but you can most certainly judge it for failing to do so.

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
• Wrong Turn (2003)
• The Midnight Meat Train (2008)
• The Collector (2009)
• Hush (2016)

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

The 'T' That Cinema is Missing

When we think of LGBT+ representation in mainstream media, we think of Orange is the New Black (2013 - present) or RuPaul's Drag Race (2009 - present): in short, we think of queer representation gracing our television screens every week in a flamboyant and fantastical way, a fun way. Both of these series in particular have given light to homosexual relationships, the discrimination of same-sex lifestyles and the art of drag, aspects of the LGBT+ community that have been acknowledged but nowhere near as popularised as they are now.

There is an issue, though, when it comes to cinema, specifically the representation of the trans community. Because when it comes to showing trans people on screen, it ends up being that they are portrayed by not only cis-actors but actors of the opposite sex; men playing trans women is just a glorified form of drag and does not honestly represent trans people, but Hollywood doesn't seem to have caught onto this.

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

A recent example of this is Dallas Buyers Club (2013). Jared Leto plays a trans woman suffering from HIV and drug addiction, a role which he barely adheres to in his acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor in 2014. Though he acknowledges the hardships of those who suffer with HIV ("[...] this is for the 36 million people who have lost the battle to AIDS"), he also goes on to say that his award reflects "[...] those of you out there who have ever felt injustice because of who you are or who you love", implying that he represents the struggles and injustices of the LGBT+ community.

Jared Leto is a heterosexual, cis-male. It's not his place to represent the community, especially considering that he isn't part of it. That's not to say that straight people, people comfortable with their assigned gender, are not allowed to be allies: of course they are, but their job is to give queer people the space to speak out, not to speak for them. 

The Danish Girl (2015)

It's considerably problematic for cis-men to play trans women (or vice versa) because it's not a true portrayal of reality and, more often than not, these actors don't understand a trans person's experience, even with a script (which, let's be honest, is usually written by a cis person as well).

Of course, Jared Leto is not the first man to play a trans woman. Lee Pace, Eddie Redmayne, Denis O'Hare, Terence Stamp, Ted Levine and Cillian Murphy can be added to that list as well. Let's not also forget that women (such as Hilary Swank and Elle Fanning) are also guilty of this, and play trans men in their respective films.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

My friend/flatmate is transgender: he identifies as a trans-masculine, non-binary individual. I asked him about tropes surrounding trans representation in Hollywood, which ones he'd change or say were unrealistic. To my horror, I found that so many parts of trans representation in our mainstream media are toxic and demonising. These are just some of the things that he listed.

• Showing the murder of trans sex workers is too hauntingly close to real life. The murder rate for people who identify as trans is infinitely higher (especially in the U.S.) than other minorities in the LGBT+ community, so to show that explicitly in a series/film is both disrespectful and painful to watch, to say the least.
• Focusing primarily on how physically transitioning and how that affects the next of kin/family of the trans person instead of showing how they feel: transitioning is obviously difficult for people to come to terms with but they don't get a say in it happening, and the focus should be on the trans individual instead of them.
• "Trans misery porn", or rather, a narrative with dysphoria and suicidal ideation at the epicentre, as opposed to celebrating the metamorphosis of someone becoming their true self.
• Explicit shots of full frontal nudity, objectifications of the trans form (whether that be male or female)

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

• Establishing stereotypes (such as "cutting hair off and strapping down your titties") that are not only misinformative of the trans experience but also potentially harmful, i.e. binding with bandages instead of approved binders, that can actually lead to fluid build-up in the lungs and cracked ribs.
• The demonisation of trans people in horror films, a subject which is touched on in a documentary called The Celluloid Closet (1995) that focuses on the depiction of homosexuality in cinema. Examples of this are Psycho (1960), Sleepaway Camp (1983), The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Split (2016), in which the plot twist/main relies on the antagonist being a member of the opposite sex. 
• The tokenisation of trans actors, such as Laverne Cox and Chaz Bono. This isn't to say that these two aren't talented individuals, but there are few and far between trans actors who are established, or even given roles for that matter. There are plenty of people who identify as transgender who are willing and more than able to fill an acting role but they are not given the chance.
• Trans women who are given a spotlight are often white, strange considering that a large part of influential culture in the LGBT+ community consists of POC. This also leads to the last point, which is the erasure of existing trans characters: Marsha P. Johnson (a black, trans activist) was omitted from Stonewall (2015), despite the fact that she was one of the frontrunners of that movement. 

Soldier's Girl (2003)

So, the problem stands that trans people in film and television are portrayed by the wrong kinds of people, and the solution to that is pretty straightforward: hire trans people to play trans characters. It's not that difficult. In the same way that Scarlett Johansson and Tilda Swinton have been criticised for playing roles attributed to characters of an Asian heritage, the actors aforementioned are guilty of playing roles attributed to a gender expression/lifestyle which is alien to them. They cannot truly represent a trans character as a cis-person in the same way that you cannot represent an Asian character as a British person. It doesn't work.

If Hollywood would be more open-minded and cast out their net a little further, they would find actors suitable for these LGBT+ roles. Imagine the success they would gather if they held true to representation: I know from experience that it made a world of difference for me to see lesbian characters on television because it meant that I didn't have to be closeted, that I was normalised, that I was validated. 

It would be nice to be able to watch a film with real diversity and know that not only are these people real but they are celebrated through the form of cinema, and not met with deprecation or erased completely. 

- K

Film Reviews: One Misstep For Man [Apollo 18, 2011]

Apollo 18 (2011)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

The idea of the unknown lurking out in space has been done successfully many times. It's been conceptualised in popular films such as Alien (1979) and the format works because we, as human beings, are terrified of the 'other', the paranormal or extraterrestrial. Why? Because we don't really understand it. 

Apollo 18 (2011) tried to follow this method ("tried" being the operative word here) and, to some extent, it is successful in doing so. However, this easily forgotten sci-fi film lacks the constraint to execute the ways of "less is more", and I think that is it's primary downfall. 

The plot follows two astronauts named Nate (played by Lloyd Owen) and Ben (played by Warren Christie), employed by the Department of Defense to place motion trackers on the moon, mainly to monitor the Soviet Union. It becomes apparent, however, that the DoD has sent them there under false pretenses, as we later find out that they're not there to spy on "those damn Russians" but to investigate the existence of extraterrestrials. Not only are they real but they're something that the U.S. government have been hiding the knowledge of. 

There are a few reasons why Apollo 18 failed to deliver on its intrigue, though. Firstly, the pacing is shockingly slow: it took at least 15 minutes into the runtime for anything of significance to happen, prior to that being irrelevant exposition that read as both unnecessary and unimaginative writing (yes, I'm aware that flashcards are a stereotype of found-footage films, but that doesn't mean I have to like it). I'm going under the assumption that the first 15 minutes of the film, which primarily consisted of shots of the astronauts with their families, was there to humanise the characters we were seeing. In my opinion, I don't think the film was able to achieve that. At no point during the film did I feel particularly bad for either astronaut: they came across as egotistical, somewhat paranoid and disgustingly patriotic. 

Secondly, the dialogue. Endless, arduous, boring. I found myself disinterested by certain scenes that felt like they had no place being there, which meant I wasn't really paying attention when the film was actually trying to show me vital plot points. At times, this film showed moments of brilliance, but its issue is that it's inconsistent: decent scenes and shots were often times sandwiched between mediocre ones. 

I can say that there were aspects of Apollo 18 that I did like. For example, the use of a 70s camera lense to actually film it: it felt authentic and added a certain stylistic charm. I also genuinely enjoyed the role of the "motion detectors", because not only were they relevant to the plot, but their footage was often dispersed amongst scenes and would zoom in on what was seemingly nothing. It creates a suspenseful atmosphere, because you're not entirely sure what you're supposed to be looking for, but you know that there's something there.

However, the real clincher for me was the third act of the movie, the 'climax' (though I'm really not sure you could call it that, on this occasion). After Nate is infected, the film stumbles its way towards the end by killing off his character and shoddily setting up the death of the other one, Ben. In the space of one conversation, Ben goes from survival mode to defeatism and then back to the hope of getting home, after the DoD contact him to say that he has been compromised and that they will not be sending a rescue team for him.

Don't get me wrong: I assume if I were stranded on the moon (or any planet away from home), I would have mixed emotions too. But because Ben's character is never really established as anything other than slightly insecure and nationalistic, I found his violent mood swings to be ill-fitted within the script. 

When I earlier referred to "less is more", what I meant was that Apollo 18 has a tendency to drag out a scene or add a scene where it's really not needed. For example, when Nate first becomes infected, we get quick cuts of him lashing out at a camera (much like the style of Sunshine (2007), where we see shots of Mark Strong's character): this is only for the audience's sake to amp up the creep factor but that doesn't really work when you're marketing this film as part of the found-footage genre. However, the following scene shows Nate filming Ben whilst he's sleeping, a scene that's both subtle and far creepier in comparison. Had they just left in that scene, and omitted the former, it would've made for a great build of atmosphere.

Another example is Ben's death towards the end. As he's flying back towards Earth, finally free and able to see his family, rocks start to float around the cabin of his ship. They explode, revealing themselves to be the aliens that have been tormenting him ever since he landed. Now, if they'd have cut that scene there, it would've been a sufficient ending: perhaps still using the flashcard at the end of the film to tie in to what happened, but contextually, it would've made sense. Thing is, they carried out the scene for far longer than needed, which to me just felt like the director was fleshing out the runtime because he had run out of things to put in, or simply that he didn't have a solid concept for the ending of the film. 

All in all, Apollo 18 isn't the worst sci-fi film I've ever seen but I'm pretty confident that you could find something more thrilling to watch. It's a shame, really, because this film had a solid concept. In my experience, though, films often do have a solid concept but are never executed to the right standard. 

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
• Sunshine (2007)
• Gravity (2013)
• The Martian (2015)
• Life (2017)

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

Film Reviews: Still Got Bite [Dracula, 1958]

Dracula (1958)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed.

Is it niche? Is it new? Absolutely not. But it is iconic and, if you haven't seen Terence Fisher's Dracula (1958), then you are most certainly missing out.

Admittedly, whilst watching, I can tell that the set design and props have aged rather badly. That's through no fault of the film: after all, it was made in the late 50s. However, it did remove me from the atmosphere a little bit, seeing as characters would bang on doors that would consequently fold like paper. The costume design was also curious, in that some characters didn't match the era that the narrative was set in (somewhere in the mid-1800s). 

The thing that makes this film, the thing that elevates it to its current, legendary status, is undoubtedly the late Sir Christopher Lee. I cannot begin to explain how fantastic I found his performance in this film: his eyes, his demeanour, his movements were electrifying and intimidating, and what little dialogue he had was brilliantly sinister. Lee was made for this role, and it still translates to this day.

I must confess that I was surprised by how much I'd also enjoy the performances of the other actors. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Peter Cushing and Michael Gough, both of which featured prominently in my childhood, but I assumed would be overshadowed by Lee. Instead, I found their characters to be entertaining, albeit a tad overly dramatic at times. 

Their roles in the narrative are simplistic, the plot itself being a cookie-cutter version of any folklore; there is a great evil which must be vanquished at all costs. Despite the story's transparency, it remains iconic and pays homage nicely to the original source material. 

That being said, there are problems, and that's to be expected of a film that is now 60 years old and counting. For one, it makes no sense to me that Van Helsing would withhold information about Dracula to the Holmwoods: at that point in the narrative, he knew Lucy (played by Carol Marsh) had been bitten by Dracula and that he would probably come back, however refrains from explaining this (and the origins of how Jonathan Harker died) to the family, which may well have prevented her death or at the very least given them notice of her vampirism. 

It's also odd that a blood transfusion scene is included, considering its based in the 1800s. Back then, blood transfusion would have been rarely practised and shunned upon by medical establishments as something far too risky for a patient to endure. It was possible, yes, just not likely to occur in the time frame that it did. 

Nit-picking aside, my greatest disappointment with this film was genuinely that there wasn't enough screen time for Christopher Lee. The first scene we see of him with his fangs out, his eyes bloodshot, his mouth dripping with blood, will forever live on as one of the most recognisable yet frightening shots in cinema. 

When I finished the film and realised that he barely featured in it, with the exception of his encounter with Jonathan Harker at the start of the film, I was left unsatisfied and craving more. I'm aware there are sequels following the success of Dracula, but Lee stated in his autobiography that in the sequels he was given even less to work with, so far as to not having lines at all: though disappointing, and I'll assume frustrating for the actor, the films were still a commercial success. 

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, despite how much it has aged. It's considered one of the most iconic horrors in history and I can definitely see why. If you still haven't watched it, I'd tell you to, if only for the cultural significance it holds and to be witness to what I consider to be one of the best performances in a horror film to date.

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
• Blood Feast (1963)
• The Gorgon (1964)
• The Reptile (1966)
• Twins of Evil (1971)

Overall rating: 8/10

- K

Recommendations: Sci-Fi

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a mature/sensitive nature].

Gravity (2013)

Science fiction, as well as horror, was a foundation of my childhood film-watching experience. My father is a very big fan of the classic 70s/80s era of sci-fi, with icons such as Alien (1979), Mad Max (1979) and Robocop (1987) sitting proudly amongst his insanely large collection of filmography.

It wasn't until my third year at university that I began to truly delve into the world-building and general writing of science fiction, finding it to be one of the more interesting genres to work with. I'd always enjoyed watching action/horror as a kid, but I had barely scratched the surface of sci-fi's potential to expand in all directions, from crime to fantasies to thrillers.

Therefore, I have compiled a list of sci-fi films I have found and enjoyed over the years in this piece: like the body horror one before it, this list is comprised of films that aren't necessarily mainstream (as that would be easy enough to compile) but are definitely entertaining...at least to me, anyway.

Treasure Planet (2002)

Any of you born in the 90s might remember this wonderful, animated adaption of Treasure Island by Robert L. Stevenson in 1883, reimagined out in the cosmos. People familiar with the original story, then, will know that the plot of Treasure Planet (2002) is essentially the same: a young cabin-boy named Jim follows a voyage for treasure. Except, you know, in space.

Now, I'm not particularly fond of children's films. I never have been, even back when I was a child. But there's something so incredibly endearing about this film, perhaps due to its wonderful art-style and animation technique, setting traditional 2-D art on top of 3-D. It is imaginative, as a Disney film should be, expanding upon the source material by building new planets, new species', new civilizations.

The characters feel fleshed out and complex, especially our protagonist, Jim Hawkins (voiced by a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt). It's an atypical coming-of-age story but it's everything a kid (or an adult) could hope for in a sci-fi fantasy/adventure.

The Fountain (2006)

Certainly an oddity in comparison to the others on this list, The Fountain (2006) is a lesser known Darren Aronofsky film, due to its poor performance at the box office: however, this masterful piece reflects on humanity's innate fear of the unknown (afterlife), the inevitable (death) and of human suffering (grief). Without giving too much away, this film is structured in three ways, following the same character (played by Hugh Jackman) trying to save another (played by Rachel Weisz). 

In the past, he is a conquistador searching for the Tree of Life for his Queen, so that she may be immortal and so that he can live by her side forever. In the present, he is a scientist searching for a cure for his cancer-stricken wife. In the future, he is a buddhist-esque traveller, accompanying a dying tree towards a nebula known as Xibalba (also referred to as the Mayan afterlife). 

Admittedly, I am biased when it comes to this film, as it's actually what I consider to be my favourite film of all time. I just think that there's such a beautiful intricacy to it, alongside a compelling and moving soundtrack (by Clint Mansell) and captivating visuals created by macro-photography. 

I will say that it's somewhat confusing during a first watch, but most certainly worth it. Coincidentally, this is not the only film on the list that uses the Tree of Life as a motif in science fiction, as you'll see below. 

Eden Log (2007)

I came across this French sci-fi horror a few years ago, traipsing the aisles of my local CeX. It was cheap, and seemingly uninteresting, but I'd never seen a French sci-fi flick up until that point. In retrospect, I'm glad that I picked it up.

Eden Log (2007) is a fascinatingly jarring film about a man with amnesia named Tolbiac (played by Clovis Cornillac), who stumbles through the levels of an underground system dedicated to a giant tree that supplies the society above them with power. Along the way, we see that the system is not so efficient after all, with people mutated into monsters from the tree's sap, some grafted physically to it's roots and bouts of insanity and primal rage begin to torture Tolbiac, leading him to commit acts of murder and sexual assault. 

The premise reminded me a lot of The Fountain, in that humanity's humanity's insatiable need to survive at all costs often results in the destruction of natural resources around them. Eden Log is certainly a very socio-political film and the setting is intriguing, due to the director's disdain for modern sci-fi films being set in "sterile" environments. 

For those of you who are not keen on foreign cinema, there is a version of it in English, though I would certainly recommend watching it in French, as it feels far more poignant that way.

Sunshine (2007)

I remember when Sunshine (2007) was playing in cinemas back in the day. I walked past thinking "that doesn't really seem like my thing, it looks like just another horror in space kind of deal", yet now looking back, I wish I'd gone to see it. Because when I finally got round to watching it a few years ago, I thought it was one of the best sci-fi thrillers I'd ever seen.

The premise is quite simplistic: a group of astronauts have been sent to reignite the Sun, after a previous group mysteriously disappeared. Along the way, they discover the original ship, and the mystery surrounding it becomes unravelled in a horrifying yet thrilling way.

My kudos immediately goes to both Hiroyuki Sanada and Michelle Yeoh who, despite playing secondary characters, ending up being (in my opinion) the best part of the film. All of the characters are well written, but I found myself more drawn to them due to their acting credibility and likeableness; Cillian Murphy and Chris Evans are both written to be typical male assholes, butting their testosterone-heavy heads together, which was slightly off-putting.

However, despite some perhaps arduous and lengthy uses of unnecessary dialogue/panning shots, this Danny Boyle film is incredibly underrated and worth a watch. 

Moon (2009)

Though I hate to admit it, I didn't watch Moon (2009) until very recently. And by very recently, I mean this month: it was kind of what inspired me to write this list in the first place.

Moon is a wonderful yet bleak film which touches on isolation, existentialism and corruption, both in terms of the business corporation that the protagonist works for and within the mind of the protagonist himself. Played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell, the main character (also named Sam) discovers that his 3-year long mission has been based on a lie and that any hope Sam was given to return home to Earth has been obliterated.

It has to be said that Rockwell does an astounding job in this film, as he ends up playing both Sam and Sam's clone: in essence, he played the same character twice, showcasing different aspects of that character's personality (i.e. "original" Sam is lonely and "clone" Sam is temperamental). 

Despite its upsetting plot twists (and the unfortunate fact that Kevin Spacey is featured), Moon has a somewhat uplifting ending and is still an enjoyable watch.

Circle (2015)

This is probably the least known film on this list and it shouldn't be. After watching this film in February, I have been showing it to anyone willing to watch, because not only is it a simplistic yet clever film, but it's also one where you either hate to love it, or love to hate it.

Circle (2015) follows a group of people who have been kidnapped by god knows who (well, it's implied that they're aliens, so let's go with aliens) and forced to terminate each other in timed rounds where a strange device in the centre of their circle murders them. It's honestly as simple as that: a process of elimination, until a survivor is left standing.

The characters are archetypes, from a timid pregnant woman to a Wall Street, asshole lawyer, all within seemingly normal roles. But the fun that is had in watching Circle is that all of them have ulterior motives and opinions, each leading you as the viewer to resent them, as well as the other characters on-screen. The dialogue is surprisingly funny in places and profound in others, and it's definitely worth watching, though I will warn you that the twist ending is likely to infuriate the majority of you, as it did with myself and the friends I watched it with.

Arrival (2016)

There's a reason why this film was nominated for eight Academy awards, and that's simply because it's so awe-inducing and intelligent in the ways in which is shows character development and structures its narrative.

Based on a short story by Ted Chiang (called Story of Your Life), Arrival (2016) follows protagonist Louise Banks (played brilliantly by Amy Adams) who has been employed to try and communicate with extraterrestrials that have suddenly appeared in ships all over Earth: as a linguistics/writing student, I personally found this film to be interesting in how they show the deciphering of the alien language through pictographs and association.

What's so incredibly clever about Arrival is that the narrative features glimpses of Banks' home life, of her daughter and husband, and as the viewer, we assume that this train of thought is taking place in the present or recent past. It isn't until the end of the film where you realise that the alien's endow Banks with the ability to see the future, and that everything we have seen leading up to that point are not events that have happened, but events that will take place further down in Banks' timeline. 

Amy Adams plays Louise Banks, in my opinion, fantastically. I was, therefore, surprised when she wasn't nominated for Best Actress in the Academy Awards that year: her interpretation and presentation of the character highlighted the complexities of human nature, of our fears and troubles showing emotions in one form or another. If anything, you should see Arrival for Adams' performance alone. 

Honourable mentions

As always, there are many, many sci-fi films I could talk about, but unfortunately a blog post can only be so long. That being said, here are some others I would highly recommend to watch if you are interested in watching new sci-fi films or just generally getting started.

• Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
• Total Recall (1990)
• Twelve Monkeys (1995)
• Bicentennial Man (1999)
• The Island (2005)
• A Scanner Darkly (2006)
• Womb (2010)
• Apollo 18 (2011)
• Source Code (2011)
• Super 8 (2011)
• Looper (2012)
• Gravity (2013)
• Oblivion (2013)
• Ex Machina (2014)

- K

Stephen King adaptations: Yea or Nay?

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a mature nature].

Film adaptations of books, video games and the like are always a hard one to judge. In a critical sense, an adaptation can be a huge success, but if it doesn't please its fanbase, can it be considered a good film at all?

Authors often have their books adapted for film: the largest franchises in the world are based on books, such as Harry Potter (2001 - 2011), Lord of the Rings (2001 - 2003) and The Hunger Games (2012 - 2015). One of the largest influences, ranging from the late 70s up to recent years, is writer Stephen King. Some of his films, such as It (1990) and Carrie (1979) are not only true homages to the original source material but are also considered both important within our culture and amazing forms of entertainment.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every single adaptation. In this list, I will be reviewing some of the larger names and the smaller, less-recognised pieces of work, and reviewing whether they stay true to their respective books. Yea, nay or neutral (hey, some have both pros and cons).  

The Stand (1994)

Now, the devout King fans amongst you may immediately call me out for including this one, as it's not technically a film. It was actually a TV miniseries that aired in the mid-90s and has a collective runtime of six hours. Yep, it's a long haul. However, my defense for its inclusion is that It (1990) is often considered a feature-length Stephen King film when it is, in fact, also a miniseries from the 90s. So I'm including this one too.

Premise

The basic plot of The Stand (1994) is relatively simple: a viral pandemic (a form of influenza) kills around 99% of the world's population. Amongst the 1% are a few survivors, primarily Stu Redman (played by Gary Sinise), who acts as the main protagonist for the most part. 

The survivors begin to have visions that either steer them down the path of good (towards Mother Abagail, played by Ruby Dee) or evil (towards Randall Flagg, played by Jamey Sheridan, who is a character that is also featured in The Dark Tower (2017) film, also written by King). 

The outcome is predictable, having good triumph over evil, but the main bulk of The Stand is following these various characters and watching them make conscious decisions to either help their fellow survivors or hinder them completely. 

Book accuracy

Relatively spot-on. The book captures the innate instincts of humans to survive but also their willingness to be manipulative or compassionate in the face of a crisis. A few characters in particular, namely Nick Andros (played by Rob Lowe) and Tom Cullen (played by Bill Fagerbakke), truly convey the voice of the author through the film's dialogue and acting: ironic, really, when you consider that Nick Andros is a mute character. 

Verdict

The Stand holds a special place in my heart, mainly due to nostalgia, but I recognise that it's very outdated in comparison to today's standards. Randall Flagg's character comes off more charismatic than threatening, and the special effects are confined to the technological era of the 90s. Did I mention that it's also six fucking hours long? 

So, in conclusion, this blogger thinks it's in need of a reboot. Verdict? Neutral.

The Shining (1980)

Alright. I might get some hate for this one. The Shining (1980) is recognised as one of the most famous King adaptations, directed by Stanley Kubrick at the start of the 80s, and has an enormous following, from both horror fans and fans of film in general. 

Some may disagree with me, then, when I say that this film is not a perfect example of a book-to-film piece. The Shining is a difficult one because I am a fan of it, but I don't like to consider it as a King film: it's really just a Kubrick film at this point.

Premise

If you've been living under a rock and somehow don't know the plot of this considerably lengthy horror film, then it's as follows: Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) is hired to be the caretaker of a hotel for the winter, and so his wife and child move with him to temporarily live there.

Unfortunately for Jack, isolation and the disturbing spirits that roam the hotel do not make a great combination for the psyche, and eventually he goes insane, murdering a fellow caretaker (and attempting to murder his own family) in the process. Luckily for the wife and child, they make it to the end of the film relatively unharmed: the same cannot be said for Jack. 

Book accuracy

To the avid reader's eye, yes, there are some similarities between book and film. The very foundations of the story are the same, but the main issue I found with The Shining is that it lost key elements of the book through its adaptation: for example, one of the biggest plot points is that the hotel is somewhat sentient, and it corrupts Jack in the first place to go on a murderous rampage. In the film, it's simply a matter of a man manipulated by a ghost butler and the claustrophobic loneliness of being in a large hotel in the winter that finally drives him to pick up the axe (side note: it was a roque mallet in the book, so that's also different as well). 

Jack's son, Danny (played by Danny Lloyd) was also far more intelligent in the book, which is later expanded upon in the book's sequel, Doctor Sleep. Tony, the "little boy that lives in [his] mouth", is actually personified on a bigger scale and acts more as his own respective character. Jack actually regains his sanity for a brief interval and manages to warn his family to flee before he turns again. The hotel blows up at the end of the book.

I'm not completely stupid: I know that films cannot include every single aspect of a source material (e.g. the omission of the orgy scene in both versions of the It film, for obvious reasons) because the runtime would be tremendously long and sometimes it's not necessary in order to capture the true essence of the book. 

However, that being said, the true horror of the original book lies in its corruption of character via malevolent spirits. It was far more paranormal than psychological, which made it an interesting book in the first place. Kubrick's film cut out the middle man completely and just focused on a man crazed by isolation.

Verdict

In my opinion, a  big part of having one's book adapted is to give it your seal of approval. So it speaks volumes that King himself has openly shown his disdain for The Shining, calling it "cold" and completely unlike his book. He also criticised Wendy's character (played by Shelley Duvall) as being "[...] one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid, and that's not the woman that [he] wrote about". 

I recognise The Shining as one of my favourite horrors, and I genuinely believe it to be a terrifying and scary piece of cinema, but it loses something in translation from book to film. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake, which is a very unpopular opinion. 

Verdict? Neutral.

Cell (2016)

Forgive me, reader, if I end up smashing my keyboard in a fit of unbridled rage whilst attempting to talk about this one. Out of all the book to film pieces I have seen, I have never been as let down as I was the day I watched the abomination called Cell (2016). 

I waited nine years for this wonderful novel to be made into a film and you know what I got? Director Tod Williams spitting in my face and delivering me this shoddily made "thriller". 

Premise

So, the plot of this film is actually rather interesting (albeit executed horribly): a virus spread through cellular networks turns people into homicidal maniacs akin to genetically mutated zombies, and they bring forward a new-age apocalypse. 

The main protagonist, Clay (played by John Cusack) goes searching for his son amidst the chaos, recruiting people along the way to help. 

Book accuracy

Virtually none. The characters in the books, complex and tragic in their portrayals, are made to be two-dimensional and unnecessarily stupid in the film. Clay, Tom (played by Samuel L. Jackson) and Alice (played by Isabelle Fuhrman) are characters you are meant to empathise with and understand: not even SLJ could save his character from becoming completely artificial and useless in the end.

Important scenes, such as the first outbreak of the virus, show Clay interacting with the affected people. It conveys his horror and confusion and his need for survival. This is omitted from the film, instead showing him to be a coward, and nowhere near as virtuous as his character should be. 

For a film produced in 2016, the special effects are, to put it as politely as possible, abhorrent. I'm not entirely sure what the budget for this film was supposed to be but it certainly wasn't enough. Let's not even mention the fact that they unironically used the Trololol song (you know, the meme from 2010 of the Russian baritone singer?) in one of the more serious scenes: wasn't serious for long, I'll tell you that.

Verdict

I really don't think I even have to flesh my opinion on this one out any longer. Acting: garbage. Screenplay: garbage. Sfx: garbage. Entire movie: fucking garbage. I want a do-over and I want it soon. The kicker? Eli Roth was originally set to direct this movie. I want to see that film, not whatever the hell this dumpster fire was. 

Verdict? Nay.

Misery (1990)

Ahem. Now that I have Cell out of the way (and to be honest that's probably the most offensive one on this list), let's get back to basics. 

King is renowned for his ability to create the scariest villains: Jack Torrance, Pennywise the Clown, Kurt Barlow...the list goes on. You may recognise the character here (or perhaps in her old-fashioned blouses and the ugly, wooly dress she dons) as Annie Wilkes (played brilliantly by Kathy Bates), who is the protagonist of Misery (1990).  Now this is what you call a Stephen King movie.

Premise

A nightmare to any budding writer, especially a successful one like King; an author crashes his car after completing his latest manuscript and is rescued by none other than his biggest fan, who coincidentally happens to be a nurse and is able to treat his injuries and help him recover. However, when she realises that he has recently killed off her favourite character in his books, things turn sour. 

Annie Wilkes is basically the original 'stan' stereotype, taking a form of media (in this case a specific book franchise) so seriously that she's become entirely obsessed with it. She demands that the author writes a new book to resurrect her favourite character and keeps him under house arrest, as well as physically and emotionally torturing him. 

Book accuracy

The opening chapter of Misery describes the uncomfortable and frankly disgusting sensation of the author, Paul (played by James Caan in the film) receiving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation from Annie: like so many other scenes that follow, it's striking in its visceral descriptions of action and internal monologue, something that the film adaptation captures wonderfully. In both film and book, we experience Paul's trauma and it makes us uneasy in every sense of the word.

It should also be noted that Kathy Bates' portrayal of Annie is downright terrifying, validated by the fact that she won the Academy Award for Best Actress the following year for it. Her performance is intense but also believable: the character is a complete maniac but she also feels like a real person, which is arguably the scariest aspect about her.

Verdict

Misery is one of the very few King novels that his been done justice in its transference to the big screen and I honestly cannot fault it, other than the fact that its a little bit dated now, but that's not a bad thing.

Verdict? Yea!

Secret Window (2004)

Some of you passionate Johnny Depp fans may remember this film from the early noughties but may be unaware that this was actually based on a story by Stephen King called Secret Window, Secret Garden in a collection of novellas called Four Past Midnight. 

Though I cannot say that I'm particularly infatuated with Depp as a person (due to the numerous allegations he has been faced with in recent years), I can admit that he is an astonishingly talented actor. His performance in Secret Window (2004) wasn't the main problem with it, in fact, I'd say he did rather well, considering what he was working with. However, I'd argue fault lies with a majority of people who worked on this adaptation, and that includes him too.

Premise

After catching his wife having an affair, a writer named Mort (played by Johnny Depp) retreats to a cabin where he delays the divorce proceedings and struggles with writer's block (as a writer myself, I can sympathise with this a great deal). Whilst there, a man named Shooter (played by John Turturro) visits him and accuses him of plagiarism, threatening to take action if he doesn't recall the piece from publishing. 

A series of cat and mouse ensues, with Mort trying to find evidence of his story being published before Shooter's, mysterious disappearances and arson happening at the same time with no obvious connection (other than the assumption of Shooter being out to ruin his life) and Mort succumbing to madness towards the end. 

The plot twist (spoiler alert) is that Shooter and Mort are the same person, and Mort accepts his alter ego at the end to murder his wife for her betrayal. 

Book accuracy

I wouldn't say that the film and book go hand in hand particularly well. On the one hand, most of the source material is used, and acts as a relatively true adaptation. However, the ending of the film drastically deviates from the original.

In the book, Mort is shot before any harm can come to his wife, and he reverts back to his 'sane' or 'normal' state long enough to express his lament for putting her in harm's way. It's quite a bleak yet touching ending, reminding the reader that Mort's character is a victim of his own tragedy and I think it's a very unusual insight into a character's cognitive understanding of their actions.

However, in the film, Mort assumes the role of Shooter and ends up murdering his wife. It's implied that the local police suspect him of the murder, but he's never shown to be convicted nor show any sign of being "Mort" again, therefore suffering no real consequences. Secret Window writes itself off as just another thriller film with the cliche of a menace to society hiding among us. In my opinion, it felt more like a half-assed ending than a clever plot twist. 

Verdict

Much like The Shining, the problem with Secret Window is that, in its own right, it's a very entertaining film. I admittedly see it as a guilty pleasure: not one that I would watch often but one that I wouldn't rule out of watching again. I think it's a successful thriller, as long as you don't associate it with Stephen King.

Verdict? Neutral.

Gerald's Game (2017)

If you've stuck around this long, then congrats! This is the last post, I promise. I decided to end it on a strong note and with a more recent adaptation, one that has probably been seen by the majority of you who are Netflix users, devout Stephen King fans or (like me) both. It is rather unfortunate that Gerald's Game (2017) is exclusive to Netflix because much like Misery, it's a fantastic version of the source material.

Premise

Your love life has, for better words, gone to shit. What do you do? Well, in this case, protagonist Jessie (played by Carla Gugino) decides to spice up her love life by indulging in her husband's fantasy to use handcuffs in the bedroom.

This would be kind of sexy, if it weren't for the fact that whilst they're staying at their isolated home away from home, Gerald (played by Bruce Greenwood) not only criticises her when she panics and wants to be removed from the handcuffs but he also suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving his poor wife locked against the headboard. 

Jessie then suffers paranoia, anxiety and experiences the visitations of a boogeyman-esque figure referred to as the Moonlight Man (or the Space Cowboy in the novel), played by Carel Struycken. The entrapment, though, is seemingly a blessing in disguise, as Jessie also begins to unearth repressed memories of child abuse that she later on uses her deceased husband's life insurance to fund a charity for. 

She does eventually escape and we also find out that the Moonlight Man is not a figment of her imagination but in fact a grave robber with a penchant for eating the faces of male corpses. Yummy.

Book accuracy

Out of all the films on this list, I'd say this is the closest to being almost 100% accurate to the original source material (with the exception of a few minor details). In that regard, I have a lot of respect for Gerald's Game, as I understand the difficulty of staying true to a novel and trying to fit absolutely everything into a film version of it: director Mike Flanagan pulls this off with tremendous success, which makes the idea of a Doctor Sleep adaptation even more promising when you consider that he will also be directing that as well. 

The film provoked the same intense and visceral reaction I had watching it as I had done reading it, something similar to my first time reading and watching Misery. I was able to visualise the horror clearly through text but it was even better than I could have imagined on screen, conveying a real sense of dread and panic. Casting Struycken as the Moonlight Man was also an exceptionally good call, as his character in the book is absolutely terrifying and the actor, known for his portrayal of Lurch in The Addams Family (1991), is definitely capable of amping up the creep factor. 

Verdict

It's not flawless but it's certainly one of the most impressive Stephen King adaptations I have seen in a long time. The cinematography is stunning, the acting is spot-on and the fear it evokes is equal only to the original source material.

Verdict? Yea!

Honourable Mentions

As always, there are too many films to mention in one post (this one itself is entirely too long but worth reading if you like Stephen King), so here are some other adaptations that I consider to be either worthy of a 'yea' or a 'neutral' rating.

• Carrie (1976)
• Christine (1983)
• Stand By Me (1986)
• Pet Sematary (1989)
• The Tommyknockers (1993)
• The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
• Apt Pupil (1998)
• The Green Mile (1999)
• The Mist (2007)

- K

Film Reviews: Not So Phantastic [Phantasm, 1979]

Phantasm (1979)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

Horror has always been a family obsession. I inherited my love of it from my dad, passed down to him from my grandfather, who used to tell me all the time that his favourite horror was Phantasm (1979). I never got a chance to watch it when I was younger, so this week, I decided to bite the bullet and sit down to watch this classic horror that he was always raving about.

After watching, I'm still admittedly undecided as to how I feel about it. In essence, it is a surrealist piece masquerading as sci-fi, something you only become aware of in the film's final act. To some, I suppose it's a clever plot twist, and something that (contextually) was probably very new and inspired for its time. 

However, I found myself sitting in the aftermath, unable to decide whether I was just being taken for a clever ride by director Don Coscarelli or swindled out of something that was supposed to be spectacular. 

The musical score of the film is a grey area. On one hand, I loved the main theme: it's very reminiscent of Tubular Bells from The Exorcist (1973) and I imagine is iconic to those who enjoy this franchise. On the other hand, the overlying music of the film (although indicative of the era in which it was made) felt more distracting than atmospheric, at times more jarring than suspenseful. Sound effects such as footsteps or the movement of objects were amplified, as if to scare the audience: in reality, I found it annoying, not scary. 

Scenes were intermittently too long, female characters only served as markers to push the narrative forward and dialogue felt forced in places. I'm aware that this film was made in the late 70s, but films such as The Exorcist have aged spectacularly, so I feel that there's no room for excuse with Phantasm.

The plot surrounds a young teenager named Mike, who begins to investigate the local mortician, otherwise known as The Tall Man. Played by Angus Scrimm, The Tall Man character is undoubtedly creepy and serves well as the film's main antagonist: there are definitely a few scenes where I found myself dreading his inevitable appearance. 

I will also say that the surrealist imagery (the enigmatic, silver murder-sphere, the animate, dismembered finger that oozes a mustard-like substance, the gateway to another planet) made for a very entertaining product of the protagonist's paranoia and imagination. Although we later find out that none of these things are seemingly real, the agitation and confusion is undeniably intriguing for the viewer. 

The clincher is, spoiler alert, that Mike has been asleep the entire time and that none of the film's events took place in what we consider to be our reality. Whilst I know that "it was a dream the whole time" is a cliché, it's likely that in context, it went down well with mainstream audiences. However, as a viewer in 2018, it felt uninspired. 

I don't think it's the plot twist that particularly threw me, but it certainly felt more like the film spat in my face for assuming its genre and making deductions based on the science fiction elements that were presented to me, rather than the dramatic 'ta-da!' moment that I assume it was going for. Tonally, this film felt unforgiving and estranged, as opposed to clever and psychedelic. Perhaps that was Coscarelli's intention the entire time. 

Either way, I can't say that I enjoyed Phantasm but I also wouldn't say that I hated it. I am, I guess, indifferent. I can see its appeal, I can see why it has the fan base that it does. But for me, it does not appeal to my sensibilities as a viewer intent on being scared and/or tantalised by a horror film. 

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920)
• Suspiria (1976)
• Eraserhead (1977)
• Videodrome (1983)
• Eden Log (2007)

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

Recommendations: Body Horror

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of an extremely graphic nature].

The Thing (1982)

Horror, in its purest form, is a genre founded on its ability to disgust, shock and terrify its audience. It has many different sub-genres, one of which is 'body horror', a sub-genre centered around human (and sometimes foreign/alien) anatomy: what makes body horror so fascinating to others is the way in which it distorts the familiar and makes us uneasy in the way that it essentially unravels what we inherently know about ourselves.

For example, most people cannot stand to watch open-heart surgery or eye laser treatment, because these are vulnerable parts of the human body that undoubtedly cause people a lot of pain when tampered with. So, in body horror, this is elevated to an extremist level, beyond our comprehension of pain and deformity.

It crosses over into other genres as well, mainly science fiction, but also adventure, thrillers, even under the category of animation in some countries. But at its core, body horror is exactly that: horror of the body.

That being said, there are people (me included) who relish in watching body horror. For me personally, I do enjoy watching it: maybe I am desensitised due to years of watching horror movies, or maybe I'm just innately a sadist, but for whatever reason, it's one of my favourite sub-genres. This list is for those who would like to give it a go or simply for those that want new ones to watch.

Hellraiser (1987)

Let's start with something easy. Hellraiser (1987) is a horror film from the late 80s, back when body horror was becoming the height of popularity. It is a staple amongst fans and is culturally recognised as a film with one of the most iconic villains in history (Pinhead). However, if you haven't actually seen Hellraiser, then you may not know that Pinhead is more of a secondary antagonist than the movie's main villain. The main villain, pictured above wearing someone else's skin (I know, pretty grim), is a character named Frank Cotton.

Hellraiser is a film I will always recommend to people who want to watch horror films, whether they're interested in body horror or not, because the foundations of the narrative are based around the culture of sadism and lust, a sort of glamorous and gory representation of greedy human nature. Their victims usually end up disfigured or torn to shreds and that is horror at its finest: sinister, bloody and intriguing. 

The Fly (1986)

The Fly (1986), a remake of Kurt Neumann's 1958 film, is a masterpiece brought to you by none other than the godfather of body horror himself, David Cronenberg. It is a film centred around the  scientist Seth Brundle, who has worked out how to teleport himself from one of his pods to another. A marvellous invention, really, until he teleports with another organic lifeform inside...a fly. 

You can imagine how that goes. The computer can't distinguish the two lifeforms and so blends the DNA together, creating the anti-hero known as Brundlefly. Pictured above is Brundle (played by the wonderful Jeff Goldblum) mid-transformation, as showing Brundlefly would more or less spoil the surprise for any of you who haven't had the pleasure of seeing the film yet.

The Fly is one of many examples of a hybrid genre (sci-fi horror) that depicts body horror in a way that becomes the antithesis of the character, through either mutation, evolution, devolution or otherwise, using plausible science as means to explain their transformations. I would highly recommend it and any of Cronenberg's other films, such as Rabid (1977), Scanners (1981), Videodrome (1983) or Naked Lunch (1991).

Akira (1988)

An unusual addition to the list, mainly due to its format rather than its content, is Akira (1988). This film is popular amongst fans of both body horror and anime due to its graphic depiction of genetic mutation through animation.

The antagonist, Tetsuo (voiced by Nozomu Sasaki), resides in a post-apocalyptic version of Japan, and is drastically altered by the military into a grotesque psychopath. Akira's success, it would seem, is mainly down to its world building: the characters' traumas and evolvement both physically and mentally can be attributed to the fantastical neo-Tokyo setting in which they must learn to adapt to or fight against.

Akira certainly conveys what other body horrors tend to forget, which is the mentality of the victim. Tetsuo is a brash and reckless character for sure, but his mutation is met with anguish, confusion and sadness, something that the audience can empathise with (despite his murderous rampage later on in the plot). Another film similar to Akira would be Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989), which follows a similar vein of Japanese body horror that blends man and machine but also conveys the character's struggles, humanising them despite their mutations.

Splice (2009)

There are many sci-fi horrors I could add to this list, so I'll stop here with this Canadian-French body horror, one that isn't as well-known as the previous two. 

Splice (2009) follows two geneticists (played by Sarah Polley and Adrien Brody) that are working on splicing the DNA of animals and humans to create a hybrid that can be of medical use. This results in the creation of Dren (pictured above), a humanoid creature with a stinger and retractable wings. But it never goes well for people who "play God" in the movies, now does it? 

Mayhem ensues, though I'll leave the ending out of it for anyone who wishes to give this forgotten gem a go. It makes this list for its excellent use of body horror, in a way that doesn't necessarily show a lot of gore, but definitely shows what could be another step in human evolution (or, at least, evolution gone wrong). 

Black Swan (2010)

Brought to you by a director known for the unsettling and frankly disturbing film Requiem for a Dream (2000), which in its own right incorporates elements of body horror as well, comes Black Swan (2010). A psychological horror directed by Darren Aronofsky, this film truly encapsulates body horror in a contemporary and artistic way.

The plot is centred around ballerina Nina Sayers (played by Natalie Portman) in her strive for perfection, though as she works harder and harder, her place in reality and her grasp of her own sanity begins to fall apart. This film is executed masterfully through the use of Clint Mansell's soundtrack, costume design and special effects and remains one of my favourite examples of body horror. 

Nina's descent into madness is truly a frightening yet thrilling watch, focusing more on an aspect of body horror that orbits around metamorphosis rather than just a general transformation: her character transcends the our reality, just not in the way that it probably should. The Fly, as previously mentioned, would also fit into this category.

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

A format that I would absolutely love to see more of is body horror within unconventional genres, such as musicals. That's essentially what Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) is: a gothic, science fiction, body horror musical.

Repo! is whimsical yet disturbing in its depiction of a futuristic biotech company profiting off people's need for new organs. It harmonises gore and theatricality quite successfully but it never loses the main essence of body horror, showing the downfall of disfigured main characters like Pavi Largo (played by Kevin Ogilvie, pictured above) and Amber Sweet (played by Paris Hilton). 

Although the plot revolves more around the exploitive nature of capitalism, betrayal amongst family and the element of greed, body horror marries well with choice aspects of this film and does so in both a gratuitous yet artful way. Another musical I would recommend is Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), though that doesn't really fall into the sub-genre of body horror as much as just gothic horror. 

Ichi the Killer (2001)

Those of you who are fans of Japanese horror may or may not have heard of this one, but Ichi the Killer (2001) is a cult classic within the crime horror genre, mainly popularised for its insanely graphic depiction of sadistic torture and quasi-guro elements. 

The plot follows yakuza member Kakihara (played by Tadanobu Asano), a sadomasochist searching for his missing boss. Along the way, he comes across a young man named Ichi (played by Nao Ohmori) who is, essentially, the perfect killing machine: he is perverse, psychotic and able to inflict levels of pain that Kakihara both admires and craves.

This kind of body horror doesn't convey a character's struggles like Akira or The Fly, but presents a character's desires to engage with it. It is almost a romanticism of ultra-violence, popular in other Japanese forms of entertainment such as anime, literature and art. It's certainly a bizarre and downright disturbing film but it uses body horror effectively, and not without reason. One might mistake Ichi the Killer for using unnecessary gratuitous violence, but I would argue that it supports the needs and emotions of the main characters, no matter how grotesque you find them. 

Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and Hostel (2005)

For my last entries on this list, I have grouped together the cult classics Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and Hostel (2005): you might be wondering why, considering both films are completely different in terms of plot and both set in different eras.

However, this is one thing that I wanted to draw attention to when it comes to body horror: it can exist within other sub-genres of horror but that does not make them synonymous. 

Cannibal Holocaust and Hostel are both incredibly gory films, depicting the removal of organs and tampering of human anatomy, however they are both considered part of the 'torture porn' sub-genre of horror as opposed to 'body horror'. Torture porn was popularised in the early 2000s by Eli Roth (director of Hostel) in an ambitious and consequently successful movement to create horror films that showed a correlation between gore and sexualised horror. Roth has stated in many interviews that he was inspired by horror films of the 80s such as Cannibal Holocaust, which he made a homage to called The Green Inferno (2013), a nod to the fictional film featured in Cannibal Holocaust of the same name.

Though featuring elements of body horror, these films are not technically classified as such. I would still recommend them to anyone who would want to branch out into torture porn, though.

Honourable mentions

There are many body horror films, but alas, I can't talk about every single one of them in a singular blog post. I'll list a few more below for anyone who is interested in checking them out, though fair warning, body horror really isn't for horror fans who are squeamish and more prone to watching the psychological or paranormal. Body horror is meant to be gross, and these films certainly are. 

• Re-Animator (1985)
• Thinner (1996)
• Cabin Fever (2002)
• In My Skin (2002)
• Slither (2006)
• Martyrs (2008)
• Grotesque (2009)
• The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (2011)
• American Mary (2012)
• Antiviral (2012)
• Tusk (2014)
• Bite (2015)
• Raw (2016)

- K