Film Reviews: Flesh is the New Black [Hellraiser, 2022]

 Hellraiser (2022)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. Please also be aware that this piece may contain material of a violent or graphic nature].

Curiously, despite the failure of the initial attempt to reboot campy, 80s slashers, it appears that we are in yet again another era of modernity dragging our horror classics kicking and screaming into the 20s - you'll recall, perhaps, that this was first attempted in the late noughties: the problem was that Friday the 13th (2009) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) were, to put it politely, abysmal. 

Modern filmmakers lack a crucial ingredient to making these films shine again and that's having an element of camp and fun. So when I heard Hellraiser (1987) was getting a reboot, I was dubious: what makes the original film legendary (other than the spectacular performance from Doug Bradley) is the gooey gore, the angelic soundtrack, the iconic BDSM-inspired outfits that gave us a queer edge to otherwise evil characters. The whole point of Hellraiser is that pain and pleasure intertwine and become something otherly - that's wherein the horror derives.

So, Hellraiser (2022)...how does it compare?

Firstly, I'll note and praise the pros. Jamie Clayton as Pinhead (or known as The Priest in the film) is exquisite. She's strangely alluring, dangerous yet seductive and inquisitive: I'm not saying whether Clayton was better than Bradley, simply that she brought out a different side of the character that we haven't seen before, which I greatly appreciated. 

Following on from Pinhead, I have to acknowledge the other Cenobites (albeit they weren't given enough screentime, in my opinion): the new creatures from Hell come with a flurry of new, grotesquely beautiful designs, including The Gasp (who evidently looks like a mix and match of Deep Throat and Angelique, two iconic cenobites from the original series), The Masque (who may well be a nod to Face from the original books), The Weeper, The Asphyx and The Mother. This new variety of cenobites is definitely an exciting addition, however, some appear for merely seconds of screentime, which was disappointing. I'm surprised Clive Barker hasn't taken a note out of the Thir13een Ghosts (1999) book yet and created an anthology exploring Leviathan lore. 

The soundtrack is okay. Ben Lovett ended up including some of Christopher Young's original score, which I guess was an attempt at being a homage but ended up feeling like a cop-out. The practical effects were surprisingly great but we don't see the best parts of it being applied until the last five minutes of film time. 

And this leads us to the cons: I have absolutely no time for any of the main characters in this film. I did not care about protagonist Riley (played by Odessa A'zion) nor did I care about her resolve to free her gay brother from Hell after she accidentally sacrificed him to the cenobites. There's absolutely no chemistry between any characters, Riley is a scarily-accurate depiction of an addict but there's no sympathy in this writer's soul for her and she gets her comeuppance. If anything, I was annoyed she lives at the end because she says she's reformed and learnt to accept the death of her brother but absolutely none of the plot up until that point indicates this. Perhaps the only highlight of the end was Roland's (Goran Visnjic) transformation into the next cenobite - it felt ethereal and painful at the same time, which is what  this series is all about. 

I'm not saying this was a bad film. It just wasn't great and, at this point in the genre, I only expect greatness from a reboot of something this iconic. It's not as if these film companies only have a few years on their hands to come up with new concepts - Hellraiser premiered nearly 40 years ago. I want to see love in these reboots, a specific attention to detail and ideas that mesh with the original source material. If Nia DaCosta can do it, then surely bigger production companies can. 

Overall rating: 4/10

- K

Film Reviews: Don't Go Down To The Woods Today [Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, 2023]

Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey (2023)

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

I often find myself in the film section of my local supermarket, browsing the most atrocious-looking b-movies you've never heard of. And, even more often, I feel obligated to buy and review the most wretched ones, so we can at least laugh and say hey, someone watched it. 

Unfortunately for me, the recent addition to my ever-growing list of films was Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey (2023), a surprisingly gory little feature laced with the most misogyny I've seen in a horror since Terrifier 2 (2022): yes, the beloved A.A. Milne character from our childhoods has his own horror film and yes, it is as bad as you're imagining. 

We begin with a primitive rendition of the original lore - Christopher Robin with his furry friends in the 100 Acre Woods, playing and laughing like the stories before him...except these creatures aren't actually enchanted, whimsical animals. In fact, they're moreso like anthropomorphic monsters, simply described as "hybrids" (though we're only treated to Pooh and Piglet, so I have to assume the budget couldn't meet the demand for the entirety of the gang). 

After Robin grows up, he moves away to pursue a career and family, leaving Pooh Bear and friends to fend for themselves: sadly, they'd grown accustomed to handouts from their favourite human - with no food left and winter closing in, they resort to cannibalism and Eeyore is the first to kick the bucket. Eeyore got off lightly, really: at least he didn't have to sit through the rest of the non-sensical plot, if you can even call it that.

Fast forward to present day, Christopher Robin returns with his fiancee (Mary) to show her his childhood friends, only to discover that his little, pastoral haven has become a dingy, rundown, almost hick-coded campsite, wherein Piglet now likes to torture people and Pooh gorges himself on lube-like honey and blood. Mary gets her face smashed in, Robin is kidnapped and beaten with what appears to be Eeyore's dismembered tail and everything is terrible.

Surprisingly, Robin's fate is the b-plot of this movie: the main focus is on a group of women, who have come to a cottage near the woods as a getaway retreat, following the protagonist's recent ordeal with a stalker. I'd like to tell you that this group of women are driven, survivalist, empowered characters. I'd like to tell you that. Instead, we have a lesbian couple who have no chemistry, a 'nerd' archetype who puts Shelley Duvall's shrieking to shame and a few others who I honestly cannot remember the names of...which probably indicates just how memorable their characters are. 

As you have probably already guessed, the film dives into the massacre of all the female characters, killed off in gruesome ways one by one. The graphic depiction of women being slaughtered is not new to the genre but this film is arguably so sexist in its killings, as (spoiler alert) Christopher Robin is somehow the only one to survive the ordeal, despite being the catalyst for Pooh's cruel, vindictive nature in the first place.  

Despite its interesting premise, this film fails to deliver on all fronts: it's not nostalgic for fans, it's not entertaining for horror movie-goers, it's not even particularly interesting for people going in with no prior knowledge of the inhabitants of  the 100 Acre Woods. Perhaps this is one to stick on when you're absolutely blasted at the next Halloween party but even then, I don't think inebriation will save this one.

Overall rating: 3/10

- K

The Pros & Cons of Franchising

 [Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

Have you ever gone for a meal and thought to yourself, 'you know what? I'll be cheeky and order dessert'. In essence, that's the function of sequels: you just can't get enough the first time round and you're hungry for more.

But, as we all know, sometimes more is too much. The Lord of the Rings works because every film (though connected by source material) work as singularities; if you look at the Hobbit series, 2/3 of the films are arguably lacklustre and co-dependent on the far more successful first instalment. A fan following can only take you so far, after all.

The horror genre is no stranger to sequels, often franchising and building a solid fanbase that follows suit. However, one might argue that franchising a film, no matter how popular it might initially be, can damage the reputation and enjoyment of the original story. 

The Pros

Saw (2004)

Let's look at the pros of franchising. For one, a sequel (or many) can be an exploration of the source material, a chance to expand the fictional universe. Long-time fans, even new ones, will seize any chance they get to see their beloved characters facing new challenges. 

The Saw franchise, for example, brings something new with every instalment: sure, it's all the same torture-porn, characters essentially being punished by a sadomasochist with a God complex, but we enjoy the Saw films because of the creative traps. The simplicity of the first film left room for any crazy device imaginable: from a cuff around the ankles to the Rack in Saw III (2006) and the even more so impressive 10 Pints of Sacrifice from Saw V (2008).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Another pro of franchising is, of course, the money; a household name can become a cash-cow with the right kind of marketing. A Nightmare of Elm Street is one of the most recognisable franchises in horror history, not only for its creative kills but for its iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger (played by Robert Englund). 

So, if you slap Krueger on anything, it's highly likely that the fanbase will come running to watch it. Take Freddy vs. Jason (2003) for example: according to Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a score of 41%, a considerably low number in comparison to the original film (which stands at 94%). However, devoted fans of the franchise still appreciate and love the film because it retains its campy portrayal of the character. Even at domestic box office, it made a profit.

The Cons

The Conjuring (2013)

Now let's look at the cons. One of the biggest issues that franchises face when churning out multiple films is that the lore can become inconsistent and sloppy, consequently creating loose ends and plot holes. The aforementioned Freddy vs. Jason, for example, creates tension by demonstrating Jason's weakness, which is supposedly water: long time fans of the Friday the 13th franchise will find this dubious, however, as Jason is no stranger to water and it's highly unlikely that he's suddenly developed a phobia of it.

The Conjuring series is also victim to this. Whilst the first few movies were actually credible, the following spin-offs (including Annabelle (2014) and The Nun (2018)) are arguably examples of weak storytelling, an overuse of tired tropes and ineffective jump scares. They don't hold the same gravitas as the original films, which actually take the time to create tension and build an interesting concept from the ground up.

The Babadook (2014)

Some creators, such as Jennifer Kent, are aware of the dangers of franchising. Kent (who directed The Babadook) ensured that herself and her producers already owned the rights to a possible sequel because she didn't want there to be another one: in her own terms, it was "not that kind of film", in that The Babadook was intended to be an artful horror that acted as a standalone tale. 

I believe that Kent (as well as visionaries such as Ari Aster or Jordan Peele) understands that it's not guaranteed that a film's integrity gets compromised by franchising, but that if a story is self-contained and well-rounded in its delivery the first time, then that process doesn't need to be duplicated. It would only be for money, after all.

Conclusion

Friday the 13th: Part 8 (1989)

Franchising is not always a death sentence for films. In some ways, the audience and the creators greatly benefit from delving further into the stories we've grown to know and love. However, there's an undeniable correlation between sequels and their performances (both financially and entertainment-wise) that suggests that less is more in most cases.

I love the horror genre but even I have to admit that when it comes to franchises like Hellraiser, Friday the 13th and Saw, I often don't watch past the first three films because they lack in quality, uniqueness and entertainment in comparison to their original debuts. So, I'd argue that franchising is fun but be aware that if your favourite movies start churning out sequels like there's no tomorrow, then maybe it's best to stay clear of them.

- K

 

What Makes A Great Horror Villain?

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

Hannibal Lecter from The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

When it comes to horror films, there's usually one, major selling point: the antagonist. What would any franchise be without their iconic baddie? If you picture Hellraiser (1987), the first thing that should come to mind is Pinhead. Alternatively, if you were to think of the Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th series, you'd think of Krueger and Voorhees rather than the main cast.

So what makes a decent horror villain? Is it the traumatic backstories, the distinct appearance? Well, in this writer's opinion, there are four main elements to a great antagonist: a lack of motive, unique characterisation, the omittance of dialogue and facial expression.

A Lack of Motive

The Man from Hush (2016)

What's scarier than a man set out for revenge? Well, I'd argue a man without a need for it. A lack of motive, seen in such films as Hush, The Strangers (2008) and The Purge (2013), creates an unsettling atmosphere for viewers because a villain without motive is equally a villain without conscience, and therefore someone the hero cannot be reasoned with. 

Imagine yourself in the scenario of Hush: a man attempts to break into your home and kill you. Why? Because he "can" and that's it. What would you do? In this situation, one would hope to regain control and order through bargaining or, at the very least, exploit one of their weaknesses. As human beings, we fear the unknown more than anything else, so if the thing attacking us cannot be reasoned with in any logical fashion, then we are rendered completely helpless. 

Villains with a motive are, in a way, able to gain our sympathy; villains without one leave you unable to find closure in the wake of their actions and vulnerable to their attacks, making them far more terrifying than the average horror baddie. 

Unique Characterisation

Captain Spaulding from House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

Every villain in horror history can easily be identified by their unique characterisation, but it takes a team of very creative costume designers and writers to make a truly great one; as aforementioned, the scariest villains can be the ones without motive, but that doesn't mean they have to lack personality or presentation.

Take Captain Spaulding, for example: a curator of the horrific and whimsical, a lover of fried chicken and a showman of curiosities. Sure, he has no motive for the murders he commits throughout the film (other than self defense and general amusement) but his dialogue and iconic appearance is what makes him thoroughly enjoyable (albeit terrifying) to watch. 

We fear those without motive but we also fear those who are grandiose, unabashedly violent and forthcoming with their murderous intent. There's more room for reasoning, sure, but it's just as unlikely that you'll survive. Spaulding kills for the fun of it but that doesn't mean he's a completely emotionless psychopath: he likes to have fun with his victims, prolonging their torture, much to the horror (and delight) of us, the audience.

Omittance of Dialogue

Michael Myers from Halloween (1978)

From Krueger's iconic taunts to Chucky's witty one-liners, we're all too accustomed to villains mouthing off during their confrontations with the good guys. So what about villains who don't speak a word? Arguably, the thing that makes Michael Myers terrifying (other than that lifeless, recycled Captain Kirk mask) is that he never speaks a word.

In Halloween, Myers' motives are unclear, mainly because we never hear him talk or vocalise his intention: we know his plans and mindset through the dialogue of others. His silence is arguably just as unnerving as not having a motive in the first place; verbalising their thoughts, no matter how self-indulgent or deluded they may be, at least gives us clues to the mindset of a villain. Our deductions are moot when it comes to Myers because the only things we know are what the protagonists know: we are truly observers in that sense, unable to predict his actions. So if you were to cross paths with him, you'd likely be cut down without reason, which is terrifying in that you'd never know when you were about to die.

Facial Expression

Art the Clown from Terrifier (2016)

Now let's look at the other end of the Michael Myers spectrum, from a blank expression to a pantomime-esque one. 

I'm biased here but I find Art the Clown to be one of the best modern horror villains, simply for his facial expressions. Like Myers, Art lacks the ability to talk, but the biggest difference is that what he lacks for in dialogue, he certainly makes up for in his gruesome smile and widened eyes.

Art's facial expressions, akin to that of Gwynplaine in The Man Who Laughs (1928), unsettles us due to the connotations: a smile would suggest happiness or joy, a terrifying concept when placed in the context of the villain sawing a woman medieval-style from groin to head. On the flip-side of that, Art's cold, calculated stare (as seen in the pizzeria scene) is just as scary, especially when he switches back and forth between the two expressions in a seemingly effortless fashion. 

This, coupled with Art's love of the tricycle and theatrical fun with body parts, makes him seem almost child-like, which arguably lulls you into a false sense of security. Art seems like he could be reasoned with because he presents himself as infantile at times, or naïve and vulnerable, but the truth is that he kills for fun and we know that simply through the sheer delight on his face.

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 7

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

White Noise (2005)

V to Z

• Wake the Witch (2010) - I don't even know if this counts as a film: this was nearly two hours of my life lost and I can't tell you a single thing I remember from it. [1/10]
• We Are What We Are (2013) - The original is better but this does have a good slow-burn pace to it. [6/10]
• Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - The meta-style is certainly entertaining but it feels rushed, as if they were trying to cram as many homages to the original series in as they possibly could. [5/10]
• White Noise (2005) - Stereotypical paranormal horror but it wasn't that bad. [6/10]
• White Zombie (1932) - Legosi is fabulous, as always. [7/10]
• Wither (2012) - A hidden gem: the limited budget is used so effectively for a truly gory and entertaining film. [8/10]
• World War Z (2013) - This film and its soundtrack is slept on, just saying. [8/10]
• You're Next (2011) - I first watched this film five years ago and I remember thinking it was so inventive. On second viewing? Not as clever as it makes itself out to be. [5/10]
• Zombi Holocaust (1980) - The ending falls flat slightly but this is a great example of Italian horror in the 80s: plentiful gore and cheesy dialogue. [7/10]

And that's it! If you've been tuning in every week, thank you for reading: I'll be back soon with more original content.

- K 

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 6

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

The People Under the Stairs (1991)

T to U

• Teeth (2007) - It's a great feminist horror but it's still somewhat lame: I'd be more on board with it if the editing weren't so shite. [5/10]
• Terrifier (2016) - Some good quality gore and an iconic, uniquely horrifying villain. [8/10]
• The Amityville Horror (1979) - I wouldn't even say this is a particularly scary horror film but it's certainly well-edited and tense. [7/10]
• The Blue Skeleton (2017) - Confusing, boring and anticlimactic. [4/10]
• The Bunker (2001) - It's not bad...not great either. [6/10]
• The Cabin in the Woods (2011) - I mean, there are no words that will do justice to how good this film is. [9/10]
• The Children (2008) - Guilty pleasure: a lot more fun at parties with friends. [5/10]
• The Dead One (1961) - It's nice to see the 'voodoo' origin used within this era but it's horribly racist: definitely didn't age well. [3/10]
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) - Surprisingly balanced and better than your average exorcism film. [8/10]
• The Eye (2002) - The elevator scene gets me every time. [8/10]
• The Giant Spider Invasion (1975) - The spider is actually kind of cute and all of the men are perverts. [2/10]
• The Grudge (2002) - America could never. [8/10]
• The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - Gnarly deaths and decent jump scares! [7/10]
• The Hole in the Ground (2019) - Films like this validate my need to never have children. [7/10]
• The House with 100 Eyes (2013) - Sound editing is abysmal but it's definitely a disturbing watch. [5/10]
• The Lighthouse (2019) - WHY'D YA SPILL YER BEANS? [9/10]
• The Ordeal (2004) - I'll never look at rural pubs the same again. [7/10]
• The People Under the Stairs (1991) - White capitalists get their asses handed to them, so you know it's good. [8/10]
• The Quiet Ones (2014) - The pacing is bad and the storyline doubly so. [4/10]
• The Shining (1980) - I don't have much to say on this other than, despite it being a decent film, it is overrated. [7/10]
• The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - Best of the Hannibal films. [8/10]
• The Sin Eater (2003) - Yet another religious fanatic film with a somewhat interesting concept yet a terribly executed storyline. I miss Ledger, man. [5/10]
• The Stand (1994) - The stereotypes have aged poorly but I have such a nostalgic love for this film...even if it is six hours long. [7/10]
• The Stepfather (2009) - Predictable, terrible, awful...other synonyms for bad. [4/10]
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - A true horror classic. Also can we talk about how fucking fast Leatherface is? That's goddamn terrifying. [9/10]
• The Thing (1982) - Other horrors wish they have the level of practical fx this film has. [9/10]
• The Thing (2011) - I know they used a mix of both but I wish they'd stayed as far away from CGI as possible because it makes everything look tacky. [5/10]
• The Void (2016) - I have no idea what's happening but it looks amazing. [7/10]
• The Witch (2015) - A baby gets mashed in the first 10 minutes...delicious. [8/10]
• Thir13en Ghosts (2001) - If you ignore the racist stereotypes, you can enjoy Matthew Lilliard in one of his most underrated performances. [6/10]
• Thoroughbreds (2017) - Olivia Cooke is an absolute superstar and this film just illustrates how damn talented Anton Yelchin was. [8/10]
• Train to Busan (2016) - Yon-Suk? More like Yon-SUCKS, am I right, lads? [8/10]
• Underground (2011) - What a forgettable and boring film. [2/10]
• Us (2019) - One of my favourite film soundtracks of all time; Lupita is a powerhouse. [9/10]

Next week: V to Z

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 5

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Re-Animator (1985)

P to S

• Paradise Lost (2006) - Surprisingly sympathy-inducing antagonists; nothing special but worth a watch. [7/10]
• Possum (2018) - Thought it'd be funny like Garth Marenghi's Darkplace...it is not funny. It's really fucking disturbing. [7/10]
• Prevenge (2016) - Talking of Darkplace, Alice Lowe is awesome in this film. [8/10]
• Pyewacket (2017) - Soundtrack's great and the creature had me flailing my hand at the TV because it moves like a spider with broken limbs. [8/10]
• Queen of Blood (1966) - Humans are dumb and are asking to get killed by aliens at this point. [5/10]
• Rabid (1977) - Men ruin everything. [6/10]
• Re-Animator (1985) - 'Giving head' has a whole new meaning. [8/10]
• REC (2007) - I will never get over that shot of the dude swandiving down the staircase. Chills. [9/10]
• Ringu (1988) - Hiroyuki Sanada is a snacc. [8/10]
• Roadkill (2011) - Low budget the house down, mama. [3/10]
• Rubber (2010) - Meta and interesting but thinks it's a lot more clever than it actually is. [6/10]
• Scarred (2005) - Stupid and predictable. [4/10]
• Scream Bloody Murder (1972) - WHY WOULD YOU KILL THE DOG, HE WAS BEING A GOOD BOY [7/10]
• Se7en (1995) - The Sloth victim scene. Jesus H. Christ. [8/10]
• Seventh Moon (2008) - Annoyingly, the design of the demons is really cool and there's a largely inclusive cast, but the first two acts are just despairingly slow. [5/10]
• Severance (2006) - Wouldn't be worth shit if Danny Dyer wasn't in it. [7/10]
• Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972) - A layered and interesting narrative that was poorly delivered: it could do with the good ol' remake treatment. [7/10]
• Sinister (2012) - Another horror film with such an iconic opener. [7/10]
• Skew (2011) - The poor sfx detract from the pacing and quality, plus the script feels unfinished. [6/10]
• Sleepy Hollow (1999) - I miss Christopher Lee, man. [7/10]
• Slither (2006) - Impressively gross body horror. [6/10]
• Some Kind of Hate (2015) - With gore as good as this, you'd think it'd be a decent film, but unfortunately the writing is entirely too problematic in that it glorifies self-harm. [5/10]
• Splinter (2008) - Hollow, lacks substance and the pacing is weak-sauce. Disappointing body horror. [5/10]
• Stigmata (1999) - How 90s can we make this set design? [6/10]
• Suspiria (1977) - Argento's magnum opus: beautiful colours, ambience, music...just stunning. [8/10]
• Switchblade Romance (2003) - The subversion of tropes is fabulous but the subtextual demonisation of a queer-coded, mentally ill character is uh...not great. [8/10]

Next week: T to U

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 4

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

J to O

• Jacob's Ladder (1990) - This film is renowned for being confusing, yet I was able to follow it easily. Fancy camerawork does not a psychological horror make. [7/10]
• Jeepers Creepers (2001) - More boring than I remember: also knowing the director's real-life crimes just puts me off this completely. [5/10]
• Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003) - Better than the first one and somewhat watchable. [6/10]
• Kill List (2011) - This took a complete u-turn into folk horror in the last 20 minutes, which was a bit left-field? [7/10]
• Kill Zombie! (2012) - The lovechild of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Shaun of the Dead: really exquisitely funny. [8/10]
• Knock Knock (2015) - Keanu, honey, why did you bother signing up for this film? [5/10]
• Land of the Dead (2005) - Underrated as hell. [7/10]
• Little Shop of Horrors (1986) - An absolute cheese-fest, and the music slaps, but the concept hasn't aged very well. [7/10]
• Mandy (2018) - I do like this film but I'm still low-key mad that it fell victim to the 'helper negro' trope. Like, come on, man: it's 2018 at this point. [8/10]
• Maniac (2012) - A masterclass in voyeurism. [8/10]
• Martyrs (2008) - One of the very few films to make me feel uneasy and physically wince. Superb horror. [9/10]
• Midsommar (2019) - Relatable, horrifying yet gorgeous to look at. [9/10]
• Misery (1990) - And this is why stan culture is terrifying, folks. [9/10]
• Night of the Living Dead (1968) - A classic. Romero's magnum opus. [8/10]
• Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Back, back, back again but now we have Tony Todd and changes to the original that are...questionable. [7/10]
• Orphan (2009) - You should've just drop-kicked the bitch, she's like, 4ft nothing. [7/10]
• Outpost (2008) - Mediocre ending but still enjoyable; the b-movie version of Dead Snow. [6/10]

Next week: P to S

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 3

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2

Halloween (1978)

G to I

• Gacy (2003) - Not very accurate and the acting is sub-par. [7/10]
• Ghoulies IV (1994) - You can tell this was someone's passion project but my god, I can't give this higher than 3, that'd be illegal. [3/10]
• Ginger Snaps (2000) - Iconic feminist film. [8/10]
• Get Out (2017) - I have nothing to say other than 'masterpiece'. And a debut one at that! [9/10]
• Ghost of Mars (2001) - It's really not hard to see why Carpenter didn't make another film for nine years after this dumpster-fire...[5/10]
• Gnaw (2008) - Not half-bad. The Cottage, which came out the same year, is a better folk horror but that doesn't mean Gnaw isn't watchable. [6/10]
• Halloween (1978) - Carpenter's magnum opus: watch this instead of Ghosts of Mars. [8/10]
• Hannibal (2001) - The only thing that really irks me is how much they changed from the source material; Moore is no Foster but she does a fine job. [7/10]
• Hannibal Rising (2007) - I'd have preferred to see this as a TV series instead of a mediocre film. [6/10]
• Hard Candy (2005) - Ellen Page is a savage and we have no choice but to stan. [8/10]
• Hatchet (2006) - Dumb characters, bad dialogue but it's fun! [6/10]
• Hatchet II (2010) - The kills are more creative, I'll give it that, but it's a less superior film to the first one. [5/10]
• Häxan (1922) - Very early example of docufiction: worth a watch just for the history! [8/10]
• Hellraiser (1987) - JESUS WEPT. [9/10]
• Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) - Pinhead is given more agency and the soundtrack is full of bops. [7/10]
• Hellraiser IV: Bloodline (1996) - A horror version of The Fountain and-- wait, Adam Scott is in this? [7/10]
• Hellraiser V: Inferno (2000) - Just...why. Y'all should've stopped at four films. [4/10]
• Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) - Wonderfully framed juxtaposition of violence and serenity with well-constructed dialogue. [7/10]
• Hereditary (2018) - Flawless. [9/10]
• Hide and Seek (2005) - I saw the plot twist coming but it still kept me on edge, and I believe that's the sign of a decent psychological horror. [7/10]
• Home Sweet Home (1981) - Too much screaming: hurry up and die already. [3/10]
• Hostel (2005) - There's far less gore than I remember. Maybe my standards are too high nowadays. [7/10]
• Hostel: Part II (2007) - The Bathory scene, man. Can't get better than that. [8/10]
• Hostel: Part III (2011) - Couples who kill together, stay together: how romantic! [7/10]
• House of 1000 Corpses (2003) - The pacing is kinda dodgy but Sid Haig makes the entire film, so we'll let Rob Zombie off the hook for this one. [7/10]
• House of Bones (2010) - This isn't meant to be a comedy but it's certainly fucking laughable. [3/10]
• House on Haunted Hill (1959) - Why are straight people like this? [7/10]
• Ichi the Killer (2001) - Kakihara is an underrated horror movie character and deserves so much more love. [7/10]
• Interview with the Vampire (1994) - Just...just so gay. So very gay. [8/10]
• I Spit on Your Grave (1978) - The original rape-revenge film. [7/10]
• It Comes At Night (2017) - The suspense rivals Hitchcock's work and I really do mean that. [8/10]

Next week: J to O

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 2

 [For part 1, click here. As mentioned in the last post, spoilers ahead!]

Eat and Run (1987)

D to F

• Dawn of the Dead (1978) - I'm pretty sure Savini is the only guy in Hollywood that has touched all corners of directing, acting, stuntsman work and sfx artist work. Anyway, I love that he just fucking pies a zombie and sprays it with seltzer like an leather-clad circus clown. [9/10]
• Day of the Dead (1985) - My favourite zombie movie of all time. [9/10]
• Dead Mary (2007) - The special effects are good but the film itself isn't engaging in the slightest. [5/10]
• Dead Snow (2009) - If Day of the Dead is my favourite, Dead Snow is a close second. [9/10]
• Dead Snow 2 (2014) - Gore effects are even better, the antagonist is more fleshed out (pun intended) and this film really leans into the bizarre and hysterically funny subject matter of the franchise. [8/10]
• Death Becomes Her (1992) - This film turned me gay as a kid. [8/10]
• Deliverance (1972) - Banjos have been ruined for me. [6/10]
• Deliver Us From Evil (2014) - Despite its cliches, the imagery and sfx in this film are actually really fucking good? Surprisingly watchable. [7/10]
• Demon Under Glass (2002) - Why is this b-movie so homoerotic and endearing? [7/10]
• Diary of the Dead (2007) - Romero's later work isn't really my thing; none of the characters are likeable and I'm more excited about them getting eaten than surviving. [5/10]
• Don't Look in the Basement (1973) - The sound levels are abysmal and so is the lighting: a disorientating horror film for all the wrong reasons. [7/10]
• Eat and Run (1987) - This film is batshit, though I think it'd be even funnier high...or drunk...or both. [5/10]
• Eden Log (2007) - I really like this film but it always leaves me feeling bleak as hell. [8/10]
• Évolution (2015) - WHAT THE HELL IS THAT BABY THING? [5/10]
• Excision (2012) - Thumbs up from the viewers with a blood fetish and a penchant for oddball protagonists. [8/10]
• Fear Clinic (2014) - Poorly edited: not even Robert Englund could save this one. [4/10]
• Feed (2005) - Interesting premise and social commentary but it lacks intelligence due to its poor execution; the protagonist is absolutely not a protagonist. [4/10]
• Flesh Eater (1988) - This film drags on for waaay too long. [5/10]
• Flesh for the Beast (2003) - Weirdest. rape scene. ever. [3/10]
• Freaks (1932) - It's better than Dracula. I said what I said. [8/10]
• Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - Everyone hates it but I think the sixth Elm Street film is wacky and enjoyable as hell. [7/10]
• Funny Games (2007) - I have no idea why Haneke decided to just remake his own film shot-for-shot but it's still good, even with an actress as terrible as Naomi Watts in it. [7/10]
• From Within (2008) - Internalised homophobia killed him, the end. [6/10]

Next week: G to I

- K

The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 1

 [Editor's note: Hi all! I know it's been a hot minute since my last post *cough* four months *cough*, but what with moving house, finishing my degree and adjusting to a post-corona dystopia, it's been very hectic for me, as I'm sure it has been for all of you. I just wanted to say thank you for your patience and I hope to post more content soon!]

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

Humble beginnings

Unless you've been living underground (which at this point sounds more favourable), then you'll be fully aware that the world is currently in shambles. 2020 has undoubtedly been the worst year for everybody but that's not what we're going to talk about today, don't worry. 

See, when I was in lockdown, I was living alone in a tiny flat, surrounded by my one true love: my film collection. I found myself realising 'hey, this could be a great opportunity to watch all the films I never got round to watching after I bought them!'...which then diverged into 'hey, why don't I just watch all of them?' A crazy notion, really, when you consider I have nearly 400 films. But it's lockdown, there's nowhere to go and nobody to talk to, so is it really that far of a stretch to save me from boredom?

So, I did. I sat down and, in alphabetical order, I watched every single film I own. In 125 days. Basically, I was still continuing the list after lockdown had ended. And, knowing I hadn't produced content during lockdown, I wrote down my thoughts on every single film in a concise, one sentence summary: today, I'm going to share those thoughts with you, dear reader. Obviously I can't put all of them here, otherwise you'd be reading a novel, so I'm only sharing those that are considered horror films (if you'd like to see other genres, let me know). So if you ever wanted a quick-fire idea of any of these films, then this is the list to go to!

Battle Royale (2000)

0 to C

• 28 Days Later (2002) - The score of this film is phenomenal and we have to stan a WOC being one of the main protagonists and a survivor in a horror film. [8/10]
• 28 Weeks Later (2007) - 28 Days is confined horror, whereas 28 Weeks is mass hysteria and it works so well: also the opening scene is one of the most iconic, chaotic openers I've ever seen in a horror film. [8/10]
• Abel Ferrara's The Driller Killer (1979) - Typical 70s, b-movie smut that has some redeemable qualities in the third act: laughable dialogue, though. [5/10]
• A Bucket of Blood (1959) - Hilariously deluded with a fun concept: I'd love to see a remake of this. [8/10]
• Akira (1988) -  The animation, the characters, the attention to detail with the worldbuilding...*chef's kiss*. [8/10]
• All Cheerleaders Die (2013) - Cringe in places but entirely self-aware and fun: also any horror film with erotic, blood-thirsty women is my cup of tea. [7/10]
• Already Dead (2007) - Terrible dialogue, predictable plot with an almost redeeming ending. [6/10]
• American Mary (2012) -  A strong, unique horror that you can tell is directed and written by women because all of the female characters are likeable and feel real. [8/10]
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - The blood geyser scene: that's it. [9/10]
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) - I know this is considered to be the outlier of the Elm Street franchise but I think it really ups the ante in terms of creativity and the manifestation of fear; a horror that every baby-gay should see. [8/10]
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) - Arguably the coolest Freddy Krueger monsters of all seven films with a bangin' soundtrack. [8/10]
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) - I like that they gave Freddy more agency in this film and made him more camp: there's no such thing as too much camp. [7/10]
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) - The worst of the seven films: it tries too hard, which is disappointing to see. [5/10]
• Apollo 18 (2011) - Not as awful as I remember when I reviewed it last but I'm still giving it a low score. [5/10]
• A Quiet Place (2018) - Masterful use of sound; I definitely cried at Jim getting fucking GOT. [8/10]
• Battle Royale (2000) - The Japanese have certainly mastered the combination of absurd and horrifying with really fleshed-out characters. Hunger Games could never, bitch. [9/10]
• Bear (2010) -  The best scenes are where people are getting fucking mauled, just so you don't have to hear the atrocious dialogue anymore. [3/10]
• Bite (2015) - The storylines are entirely too predictable but the body horror is fun to watch and I will give credit where credit is due: the sfx are impressive. [7/10]
• Black Death (2010) - Nice plot twists but a really fucking bleak ending; Sean Bean dies again. [7/10]
• Black Swan (2010) -  Natalie's performance is so damn good and she deserved her Oscar for it; Aronofksy is one of my all-time faves, so I'm a bit biased here in saying it's a magnificent example of cinema. [9/10]
• Black Xmas (2006) - 'Meh' ending, more entertaining drunk with friends, I imagine. [6/10]
• Braindead (1992) - A guilty pleasure film because it's so fucking gross and funny, plus I challenge you to find a horror that's as inventive with its gore as Braindead is. [9/10]
• Candyman (1992) - The soft lighting, screams and orchestral soundtrack, accompanied with a dramatic soliloquy makes for a very out-of-body experience but in a good way;  a staple of horror cinema, though I hope the remake fixes the mistakes of the original. [8/10]
• Carnival of Souls (1962) - Creepy imagery and a good ending, though I found the soundtrack to be obnoxious at times. [7/10]
• Case 39 (2009) - Your average Hollywood cash-grab: something to stick on whilst you're hoovering. [4/10]
• Cassadaga (2011) - Creative serial killer but problematic plot-line: LGBTQ+ individuals should avoid this at all costs. [4/10]
• Cell (2016) - Stupid fucking movie that I hate with a passion; Y'ALL DID STEPHEN KING DIRTY. [2/10]
• Chernobyl Diaries (2012) - This could've been a good film, had it been written and executed better. [5/10]
• Creature from the Black Lake (1976) - The storyline and characters are pretty uninteresting and the reveal of the creature is less terrifying humanoid and more discount Bigfoot. [4/10]
• Creep (2014) - I fucking adore this movies because it's one of the first that unsettled me upon first viewing, which is a hard thing to do; Mark Duplass is a great actor. [8/10]
• Creepshow (1982) - The lovechild of King and Romero, segments reminiscent of Argento's cinematography and cameos from both King and Savini? If you haven't watched Creepshow, you aren't a real horror fan. Simple. [8/10]
• Cronos (1993) - I love Del Toro and everything he does: his films are gothic and disturbing and yet you can feel how lovingly they were written and made. [7/10]

Next week: D to F

- K

Rustic Revenge: an Exploration of Folk Horror

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

"Now it's dark, and you seem to have lost him, but you're hopelessly lost yourself; stranded with a murderer. You creep silently through the underbrush, [...] in the distance, a small cottage with a light on. Hope! You move stealthily toward it but your leg, [...] it's caught in a bear trap."

Ironically, Rob Cantor's Shia LaBeouf Live illustrates the core essence of what folk horror is: isolation, wilderness, panic and murder. Kieran Fisher defines 'folk horror' as a wide variety of things, from "folk tales and legends to stories about ghosts, the occult, and deranged communities", that is to say that in folk horror, the scares derive from the nature that surrounds the characters as well as the occupants dwelling within it. However, this is not the same as eco-horror.

Andrew Hurley wrote an article for The Guardian, claiming that a recurring motif of folk horror is that characters are "seduced by the idea that the natural world is where [they'll] find some kind of restoration, enlightenment and, ultimately, peace". I think what's interesting there is that Hurley suggests that, as an audience, we are drawn in by the same temptations but this is where I have to disagree: these films, often b-movies, have a demographic of city-dwellers. A lot of critics claim that this demographic fear nature and the ambiguity of it (after all, it's often depicted as wide, open space, a land of lawlessness, a beautiful yet isolated setting). 

But I believe that what people really fear is the people who inhabit these settings: the villagers, the rustic types, the farmers and fishermen and the less-educated. Because if we look at examples of folk horror, nature is used as a front to lull its victims into a false sense of security: the real horror originates from the characters that already live there. 

The Cottage (2008)

This argument, I think, depends on context. For example, I am from a county called Suffolk (that's in England, for you non-UK folks), renowned for their agriculture and rich history; Ipswich's football team literally has the nickname 'Tractor Boys'. My childhood was largely spent in a village called Somersham which, I kid you not, is just one, long road surrounded by fields, fields and more fields. Therefore the isolation aspect of folk horror evokes no response from me: I was basically raised in a place where mobile signals were scarce, where birds woke you up at 7am and seeing people hack at wheat with a giant scythe was a normality. 

However, non-European countries may view this differently. Films such as The Wicker Man (1973), The Cottage (2008) or Gnaw (2008), all examples of British folk horror, depict those who live in a rural society as 'The Other': they're often shown to be mentally retarded, physically deformed (suggestively through inbreeding) and known to harbour hatred for city-goers and urban dwellers. People in rural areas in horrors films are demonised because their way of life is different from our own.

Midsommar (2019)

Let's take Midsommar (2019) for example (warning: spoilers ahead). The setting is this idyllic, pastoral community in Sweden wherein their traditions are observed and chastised by the American characters, e.g. love charms, ritualistic suicide and chanting. The Hårga are depicted as peaceful yet sinister as they murder each American one-by-one but, if we take into consideration why they die, then you realise that the horror doesn't derive from these rural people being an example of the 'Other', rather they are protecting their community from outsiders that choose to disobey their rules, mock their traditions and endanger them. In essence, they are not the villains: the main characters are.

Simon and Connie insult the Hårga's tradition. Josh violates their trust. Mark literally urinates on a sacred tree and then refuses to understand why the people are angry. Christian is just an absolute d-bag overall and you'll know that if you've seen the film. 

Did they deserve to die for it? Probably not: their outbursts are more suggestive of their ignorance rather than malicious intent. However the horror of Midsommar is in what the characters fail to respect and acknowledge, not in the inherent nature of the rural community. Dani is embraced by nature and by the Hårga because she understands grief, pain and healing through being open-minded and embracing the community's way of life (e.g. baking with the women, dancing for the May Queen title and taking hallucinogenics). 

Kill List (2011)

From what we're shown in folk horror, people who live closer to nature tend to be more spiritually connected to the earth (or at least act as servants to it). Paganism is a largely used motif in folk horror, a religion that worships the elements; it's important to note that there are many different sectors of paganism and that the one we often see in horror relates to eco-centric practise and religious naturalism. 

Folk horror tends to demonise paganism and/or natural worship as something that isolates those involved and keeps them in a cult-like setting, something the urban characters oppose to due to a fear of losing connection to their world. It's a recurrent theme: the mobile doesn't work, there's no public transport, that farmer who's offering to help seems dodgy...anything that can keep them from "escape". The irony in that is that city-life is considerably more claustrophobic and chaotic, whereas rural settings are typically large, spacious areas, so perhaps they don't fear escape as much as they fear the lack of structure and law. 

However, there is nothing sinister to paganism, in the same way that satanism (a popular religion to depict in horror) is perfectly innocent as well. Paganism is pre-Christianity and satanism is attached to it entirely, as the core belief is following Satan, a Christian character: think about it, in every exorcism film, what triumphs evil? Followers of Christ. Priests. Men of God. There is a clear prejudice against non-Christian religions and that's evident throughout horror history (though that's a tangent for another time). 

The Locals (2003)

The point I'm trying to make here, as messily as I may have put it, is that the true horror of this folk sub-genre is not nature: it's humanity. Eco-horror is a separate sub-genre that deals with humanity versus our earth but folk horror deals primarily with the divide in humanity, the rural versus the urban. In folk horror, nature is idyllic and nurturing only to those who are worthy of it, and accept that although humans reign, Mother Nature is still in charge. 

- K 

The Authenticity of Resident Evil: Afterlife [2010]

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

If you're a gamer, I'm sure you're all too painfully aware of the game-to-film curse that somehow manages to take our most beloved video game franchises and suck them dry, returning to us on-screen as shadows of their former selves. Hollywood likes to regurgitate their cookie-cutter stories with everything and video game adaptations always seem to fall victim to it.

One video game franchise in particular was for a while considered to be a game-to-film success story, said franchise being my childhood love: Resident Evil (1996 - present). Paul W.S. Anderson came forward in 2002 with the first Resident Evil movie starring Mila Jovovich as the titular 'Alice' (a character, I should note, that never features in the video games) and managed to garner $130 million at the box office. It wasn't the perfect video game adaptation, but it showed promise, and most of us were just happy to have something that wasn't complete garbage (looking at you, Super Mario Bros).

After that, Anderson spawned numerous sequels, which...well, they weren't as great: six films were made in total but even Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017) only managed to score a measly 38% on Rotten Tomatoes. The general consensus amongst long-time fans is that the downfall of Anderson's zombie-filled empire came with the release of Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), the fourth instalment of the franchise. However, it is my opinion that this film is perhaps the only instalment that authentically reflects the true, campy yet delightfully violent nature of the original video games.

Firstly, let's look at references. The script for Afterlife began in 2008 but there are some undeniable influences from the Resident Evil 5 (2009) game that was released a year later, namely the inclusion of the "majini" as well as other Easter eggs, such as the P30 injector. 

"Majini", for those of you that aren't familiar, are a type of undead that retain some intellect and have distinctive mandibles that open up like a fleshy mouth-flower, much like the Demogorgon from Stranger Things (2016 - present) or the Reaper vampires from Blade II (2002). They were first introduced in-game with Resident Evil 4 (2005), where arthropods named "plagas" infected an indeterminate region of Spain, turning their victims into madmen with terrifying (albeit impressively flexible) mouths: the inclusion of this in Afterlife is never explained but it was a treat to see the filmmakers not only move away from the T-virus storyline and include variation but also reference things from the newer games.

Secondly, the characters. As with the majini, we are (finally) introduced to Chris Redfield (played by Wentworth Miller), one of the two playable characters from the first ever game in 1996. Incidentally, Chris is never featured in the sequels, but his appearance in Afterlife brings such a wave of nostalgia to the viewer, especially when we're also given a scene where he and his sister, Claire (played by Ali Larter) are reunited: this is a nod to the game franchise's ongoing plot-line of Claire and Chris spending most of their time searching for each other.

Albert Wesker (played by Shawn Roberts) is also given more screen-time in Afterlife: he was initially introduced in Resident Evil: Extinction (2007) but thankfully plays a larger role in the fourth instalment. Wesker is, first and foremost, one of the most prolific antagonists of RE and it was quite shocking that he was shelved up until the fourth film.

And then there's my favourite character: the Majini Executioner. When I was rewatching the film, I assumed this hulking behemoth of undead flesh was the Axeman (as listed on Afterlife's IMDB page), a side character from the Resident Evil Outbreak File #2 (2004) spinoff game. Then I realised that it was the Executioner, introduced in Resident Evil 5. 

Despite the Executioner lacking a backstory as in-depth and brutal as the Axeman, this character makes for one of the greatest secondary antagonists of any RE film, in my opinion. From his intimidating silence to his over-sized meat tenderiser of a weapon (which distinctly reminds me of the Champion's Cudgel from The Elder Scrolls series), the Executioner scene in Afterlife epitomises everything great about the franchise: gratuitous violence, bad-ass character design and a soundtrack that slaps. It genuinely feels like you're watching a mini-boss fight scene and it's fun as hell.

Lastly, the tone of Afterlife is, in my opinion, what truly grounds it as the most authentic-feeling film. Scenes like the Executioner fight as well as the rooftop explosion feel like we're in a video game, the latter demonstrated by camera movements and choreography you'd typically see in a third-person shooter as the player takes down waves of enemies. One of the best scenes of the film is where the Redfield siblings battle Wesker on the Arcadia ship, an almost shot-for-shot remake of a cutscene from Resident Evil 5 (in which Chris and Sheva Alomar fight Wesker as well, see the video above for the comparison shots).

Afterlife's dialogue is questionable. I don't think I could ever truly defend the film's writing because, for the most part, it's mediocre and downright laughable. But it doesn't detract from the action: in fact, it sort of supports the campy, ridiculously theatrical tone that we see evident in pretty much every single RE game prior to the release of Resident Evil 7: Biohazard (2017), which took a more serious and realistic approach. If anything, Afterlife would've been out of place for the film franchise had it taken itself seriously and tried to mimic the tone of its contemporaries, such as 28 Days Later (2002) or I Am Legend (2007).

All in all, Resident Evil: Afterlife achieves what I believe none of the other instalments do, and that is authentically capturing both the tonal and visual elements of the original franchise in a way that stands as a great example of what Resident Evil is all about. Fun, gore and some funky looking zombies.

- K 

[Editor's note: video credit goes to Hero on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74_gTzYCxeg]

Why The Human Centipede 2 [2011] is Actually A Decent Film

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed. This piece also contains material of a disturbing and graphic nature].

You won't have to have seen The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009) to know what it's about. No doubt your friends have made you watch it for a dare at that one sleepover or you were too curious after it was hyped up and made the decision to see what it was all about. If you haven't seen it, well the premise is simply a man that wants (and succeeds in) stitching three people, erm...ass-to-mouth. 

This late noughties horror flick became an instant sensation, a modern-day video nasty, sickening people all over the world and earning itself some tidy bans in a few countries. Tom Six (the director) had openly declared to society that he was the new face of b-movie torture porn, despite it being disliked by so many people, audiences and critics alike: mainly it was hated for its audacious and disturbing source material but it also didn't help that the performances were lacklustre and the script could be called mediocre at best.

So it's interesting that its successor, The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (2011) was surprisingly good in comparison. I'm sure most would disagree with me on that and happily plonk it onto the same burning heap that the original film (and third instalment) sit atop like an un-welcomed bad-taste horror prodigy.

However, this sequel has some merit, namely its use of meta-storytelling. The entire premise of  THC2 is that a sadomasochistic, introverted man named Martin (played by Laurence R. Harvey) is obsessed with the first Centipede movie and fantasises about creating his own real-life monstrosity with 12 people, as opposed to the original three. THC2 derives its horror not only from the visceral and gratuitous violence we see on-screen but from the genuinely terrifying concept that its grounded in our reality.

If we look at this film at surface level, it's pretty simplistic: the entire thing is shot in black and white (a seemingly artistic choice but nevertheless a necessity for Tom Six after he couldn't get it through censorship gates) and it does do what it says on the tin...it gives us a human centipede. But if you take a more analytical approach to it, you'll notice that THC2 is not only able to be self-referential but it also pays homage to other aspects of horror, making it more than just a two-dimensional snuff-like flick about some people stuck together with staples.

The main bulk of the film feels like a midnight feature of underground cinema, something so depraved and explicit that it could only be watched by dedicated movie-goers or curious patrons looking to get a kick out of being freaked out; the use of black and white alone makes me reminiscent of the b-movies they'd show in the 60s. 

There's a particular scene in THC2 that makes me think of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960): in the final act, our "protagonist" (if you can really call him that) finally snaps and smashes his emotionally abusive mother's head in with a crowbar, after which he proceeds to sit her at the kitchen table and stare at the bloody remains of her face like a man without a care in the world. It's unnerving, similar to the way in which Norman Bates kept his mother's corpse around and spoke to it like she was still alive: such absurd niceties are what truly evoke a good reaction from the audience (at least in my opinion).

The characters in the sequel definitely supersede that of the first film. Martin's incompetent yet believably malicious character is a complete 180 of Dr. Heiter from THC1, in that Martin is at least a character you can almost sympathise with as a victim of emotional, physical and sexual abuse, whereas Heiter is just a psychopath abusing his skills as a physician. Supporting character Dr. Sebring (played by Bill Hutchens) is a walking, Freudian parody, depicted as an authoritative yet perverse opposition to Martin. And of course there's Ashlynn Yennie, an actress from THC1 who reprises her role as an exaggerated, meta-version of herself, further strengthening the link between the first and second film.

Is this a perfect horror film, though? No, and I'm not here to contest that it is because THC2 is very self-indulgent, the narrative is littered with tired, stereotypical tropes and arguably strays further out of the torture porn category and more into a fetishization of scat/bodily fluid/snuff kinks (I wonder if Tom Six is aware that gross doesn't necessarily equate to horror).

However, the final act of the film is what fans remember: it's simply a test of endurance on behalf of the viewer as to how much you're willing to witness. If the act of teeth being smashed out with a hammer wasn't enough for you, THC2 gradually unpacks all of the twisted ideas in its arsenal: from ripping out a tongue with pliers, to explicit sexual assault, to stomping on the skull of a new-born baby, THC2 does it all and spares no mercy in showing it. It is an embodiment of the torture porn genre but not in the generally campy, over-the-top way: it's decisive torture, implemented by an amateur in crude fashion. It's horrifying because, unlike Dr. Heiter with his medical expertise, any of us could be capable of doing what Martin does (if you're twisted enough). 

The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence is a decent horror film (despite its obscenities and ludicrous script) because it not only utilises the shock factor of the first-film but creates something entirely new in the process: bigger, bloodier and weirder than before. 

- K