The Devil Inside

Scary films are a relatively new phenomena for me, it has only been in the last two years that I have watched the classic scary films such as The Exorcist and The Thing and surprisingly I really enjoyed them and the feeling of being scared.

The trailer for The Devil Inside was really good and looked genuinely creepy. Oh how appearances can be deceiving...

The story is based on three murders that took place in 1989 by Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) whilst an exorcism was being performed on her. Her daughter, Isabella (Fernanda Andrade) only finds out this some twenty years later and starts to investigate why this happened.

Her investigation takes her to a Catholic psychiatric hospital in Rome where her mother resides (although it is never explained why Rossi was transferred there) and after meeting with her, she is profoundly disturbed by what she finds. 

Afterwards she meets two priests who specialise in exorcism. Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmeth) are prepared to exorcise Maria to see if they can rid her of her demons.

Before they can do this, they decide to show Isabella what a real exorcism consists of and the person being exorcised mentions Isabella and her situation several times.

We then to the exorcism which David is beginning to be very concerned about doing as priests cannot perform exorcisms without permission from the Church. However, Ben convinces him that it is the right thing to do and the exorcism goes ahead with severe consequences.

I can honestly say that there is nothing good about this film, so lets just move on to the bad things:

1. Hidden footage/shaky camera - filmmakers, this is the worst possible way to show a film. It is not clever, it is just very annoying, particularly when it is done so badly as in this  case.

2. The acting - They spent far too much money on the rubbish cameras to spend it on actors who can actually ACT.

3. The best films have a coherent and engaging story - this had neither.

4. The ending of the film can almost make or break a film - please ensure your next film actually has one.

5. Make sure the marketing of a film makes sense - The posters for this film feature someone who is in the film for less than half a second and isn't even a proper character.

6. Scary films should be scary - This was laughably bad with absolutely no scares at all.

Verdict: If there is one film that could easily be prosecuted for breaching the Trades Description Act, it is this one... 

The Raven

Now, those who listen to the BBC's flagship film review programme (Kermode & Mayo's Film Review) will know that I am a huge fan of John Cusack and that I am the co-creator of the 'Cusackathon'.

So, when a Cusack film is about to be released, there is an element of trepidation. Is this going to be a classic such as High Fidelity or Max? Or is it going to be 2012 or Hot Tub Time Machine? Unfortunately, it's not good...

The film centres on Edgar Allen Poe (Cusack) and the last five days of his life which go from elation to despair to the downright unbelievable.

Professionally, Poe is finding it increasingly difficult to get his work published as his editor reveals that the public only like Poe's gory tales. Personally, however his life is taking a turn for the better as he becomes engaged to Emily (Alice Eve). This is despite her father, Colonel Hamilton, (Brendan Gleeson) strong reservations about Poe's suitability.

While this is going on, there are a number of gruesome murders taking place, the detective in charge, Inspector Fields (Luke Evans) initially thinks that the murders are linked to Poe. He soon realises that the murders are based on murders that Poe has described in his stories. It then becomes clear that the killer is working his way towards harming someone close to Poe to get to Poe. In order to prevent this from happening, Fields and Poe have to work together to work out the murderer's next move.

Although this is a fictionalised account of the last five days of Poe's life, it is just an absurd story, told in a really boring way. Cusack looked distinctly uninterested and as though he is just going through the motions. Evans and Gleeson were good, but not even they could do much with the dire and clunky script.

Visually it looked good, but that did little to save this film.

Verdict: Given that I have been a fan of Cusack since Say Anything, I quite frankly deserve to see a little less of this and other garbage such as 2012 and more Max and High Fidelity. Cusack - get a better agent who can get you into better films...

A Dangerous Method

David Cronenberg is one of those directors that I am likely to see whatever film they are involved in. From the fantastic The Fly to the sublime Eastern Promises, he is an original and I always find his films thought-provoking if nothing else.

A Dangerous Method is about the relationship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and the infant beginnings of psychoanalysis.

The film starts in 1904 with the arrival at Jung's Zurich clinic of Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), manic, desperate and having to be physically restrained by her companions. Using Freud's theories and method, Jung has success in calming her and eventually enabling her to use her intelligent inner mind. This leads to Jung writing to Freud about Spielrein and her treatment and the two develop a professional relationship based on discussing their theories and ideologies.

Jung and Spielrein embark on an affair which has far reaching consequences, on both Spielrein's mental health and Jung's ability to continue his work.

Despite seeing Freud as a surrogate father, their relationship breaks down when Jung disagrees with Freud's ideologies, particularly Freud's assertion that everything stems from sexual repression.

This is a film drenched in tension and intelligence and I found it interesting to watch. Knightley is fantastic as a deeply troubled young woman, indeed her chin should win awards for its performance. Mortensen was sublime as always and Fassbender has added yet another film to his list of excellent performances.

However, I felt the pacing was slow and drawn out at times. This is not an 'action' film at all, it is very much a conversational film, which was interesting, but difficult to follow at times. I felt the sex sciences were strange, but my guess is that is how Cronenberg wanted them done.

Despite the great performances, the film was let down by Cronenberg's direction somewhat. It felt restricted and the film didn't flow as well as it could have done.

Verdict: An interesting film about a fascinating subject with excellent performances. Let down by less than brilliant direction, but a film worth seeing nonetheless.

The Descendants

Now, when a film as hyped up as much as The Descendants has been in recent months, my natural reaction is to be incredibly harsh and have very high expectations. Add George Clooney, a man of limited appeal and talent in my opinion, into the mix then I was ready to not be impressed by this film...

Matt King (Clooney), a descendant of one of Hawaii's first white land-owning families, must decide whether to go ahead with a multi-million dollar land deal that will destroy a vast bit of Hawaiian forestry to be replaced with tourists and condominiums. 

At the same time, he faces a personal crisis. His wife, Elizabeth, has had a boating accident, leaving her in a coma. Matt now faces the decision to disconnect her life support and become a single father to his two daughters, 17 year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and 10 year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) while dealing with the frustration of the locals at his proposed business deal.

Another twist in this story is a secret involving Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) which makes Matt doubt his life up that point. It is the actions following the revelation that, I feel, gives the film it's heart. Matt reacts in a very human way initially and then in a very compassionate way which gives the film a great tenderness despite his very obvious hurt.

The film is very gentle, but very powerful and I thought about it a great deal after watching it. Although it didn't feel impressive whilst watching it, it is a film that has grown on me and I am going to see it again. I cannot quite put my finger on why it was impressive, but this seems to be a common opinion amongst critics that I respect.

The leads were all impressive and although Clooney has limited range as an actor, he was very good in this film, possibly the best I have seen him in anything. Woodley and Miller were charming and competent in their roles and I hope they use this as a platform to elevate themselves to great things. 

I really liked the way that Hawaii itself was a character in the film, showing what some consider to be a paradise island, to be as dark, rainy and depressing as any other place on earth. Clearly there is no such thing as paradise.

Verdict: Packed with some excellent performances and a fab soundtrack, this was an engaging and thought-provoking film with a bitter-sweet ending. An excellent film that will stay with you for some time. 

Chronicle

I am a bit partial to a superhero film, there is something quite satisfying about good overcoming evil. I wasn't really inspired by the trailer but went on the recommendation of Dr Mark Kermode and others...

Chronicle follows a high school teen named Andrew (Dane BeHaan) as he chronicles his life on a second hand video recorder. Not only does he record his home life (his abusive father and dying mother), he also records his days spent at school, from the lonely lunches watching the cheerleaders practice to the bullies that roam the hallways, much to his cousin Matt's (Alex Russell) chagrin. Matt wants Andrew to put the camera down and just try to be normal. 

It's Matt who drags Andrew out to a party, and it's at this party the two meet up with Steve (Michael B. Jordan) who is the most popular person in school. He's discovered a unexplained hole in the ground in a secluded area and they want the camera to record what they find. As they delve down into it, they discover something strange, made of crystals and light that disturbs the video quality and gives them telekinetic powers. 

As you would expect from three teenage boys, at first they use the powers they have obtained to amusing effect including freaking out customers in a store and moving cars to confuse a shopper. As the stress of family life gets to Andrew, he finds it harder to control his powers which leads to him self-destructing. 

This is a really well-made and well-thought out film. The story, as far-fetched as it is, actually seems very plausible when you think about how three teenage boys would react to suddenly having super-powers. The three lead actors are impressive and the script is very tight with few lulls.

I know that some critics have been negative towards the 'found footage' aspect of the film, but if I'm completely honest, that didn't bother me as I assumed that it was a 'home footage' scenario rather than 'found footage'.

The last fifteen minutes were a little over the top, but all in all, a really good film that was far better than I thought it would be.

Verdict: Apart from the 'incredible sulk' aspect to the ending, I thought this was a thoroughly entertaining film with brilliant performances from the leads, a realistic script and an interesting story. A very pleasant surprise...

The Woman in Black

One of the many problems with being a child star is that your audiences very rarely allow you to grow up. As this is Daniel Radcliffe's first lead since the Harry Potter films, it was always going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I should point out that I haven't read the book or seen the play, so am seeing the film on a standalone basis. 

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a bereaved young solicitor with a three-year-old boy, who is sent by his firm to broker the sale of Eel Marsh House in the remote village of Crythin Gifford. Once there, among suspicious locals, save for a welcoming Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds), he gradually uncovers for himself the story of a black-cloaked woman that lures children to their deaths.

I know that this is a very short synopses of the film, but there is an awful lot of detail and I really don't want to spoil it for anyone!

Radcliffe is surprisingly good in this film, physically he looks different to Harry Potter which helps. However, I do think that he is slightly too young to play the role of a father, which I found quite difficult to believe. I do accept that that could be my own prejudices coming into play. But as a first feature film since the Harry Potter's, it's a very commendable effort and I hope that whoever is advising Radcliffe on future roles steers him to doing as wide a variety of roles as possible in order to shake off the Potter tag.

The supporting cast was very good, Hinds is as reliable as ever as the only sane person in the village and Janet McTeer was excellent as his troubled wife.

The film itself is interesting. I really enjoyed the basic story (although it is different from the original novel) and people who have a genuine affection for the book may not feel the same way. I should also point out that the ending is very different to that of the book and of the play. The film is beautifully shot and director used the space and bleakness to superb and chilling effect.

But it is not that scary... There are lots of moments of tension which are brilliantly done, a few jumpy scenes, but that was the extent of it. I have heard of people having issues sleeping after seeing this film which is an overreaction in my opinion.

Verdict: A good solid effort from Radcliffe, in a well-acted and well-directed film, but just not scary enough for me.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

There are some films that warm your soul, stretch your brain or just make you feel something, whether it be anguish, fear, laughter or empathy. When a film leaves you feeling nothing, that's a worrying sign...

The film is about Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) who has had a difficult and challenging childhood (the details of which are not revealed) and in order to escape her life, enters in a cult ran by Patrick (John Hawkes).

The cult is portrayed in the usual clichèd way, an enigmatic leader who rules the followers using violence and charisma. There is the sexual openness as well as sexual abuse that nobody questions. The girls are renamed by Patrick (again this isn't really explained why) and Martha is renamed Marcy May.

After two years Martha decides to escape the cult and she calls her older sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) to come and pick her up. Lucy then takes her to the house by the river where she is staying with her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy).

The films alternates between Martha's current life with her sister and episodes of her life within the cult. As her mental state declines, Martha becomes more and more paranoid that Patrick is going to come and get her.  Martha's erratic behaviour causes tension between herself, Ted and Lucy and eventually leads them to consider taking Martha to get professional help.

I am going to start with the good things about this film. The first is the excellent acting by Olsen (not something you usually associate with that surname). She really is destined for great things and I look forward to seeing what she does next. The second thing is that the film is beautifully shot and looks exquisite.

We've a lot to cover in the bad things: Firstly, there is no backstory whatsoever. We have no idea what happened in Martha's childhood so the ability to empathise and rationalise her behaviour is lost. There is no present story either. The film is literally a selection of 'things' that do not link together in any real coherent way. The film is far too long and far too slow. I am guessing that it was slow to build tension. You need a story in order to build tension. At no point did it look as though Patrick was going to come after Martha. So you have no tension.

As for Martha's erratic behaviour, it honestly seems more like a teenager having a strop rather than real mental disturbance. When I say this, I am referring to the dialogue and the direction, not the performance of Olsen. The cult activities were shown in a very clichèd manner and was full of so much hippy bull-shit that there were members of the audiences chuckling.

The ending was awful.

There genuinely is nothing worse than a film that makes you feel nothing and that's what I felt.

Verdict: An ambiguously annoying and pointless film. Olsen and Hawkes delivered fantastic performances and deserved a better script and direction for their efforts. Oh and a story as well...