Cherry Tree Lane (2010)

Not NW10...

This is an English movie, even if one variation of the artwork clearly shows an American-style house and a white picket fence. It's actually set in North West London, and was written and directed by Paul Andrew Williams (another of his horror outings was darkly comic The Cottage).

That's... better...?

Cherry Tree Lane reminded me of both Funny Games and Eden Lake, and though it's neither as cerebral as the former nor as devastating as the latter, it still manages to be pretty riveting and successfully create tension with "only" a mostly one-room setting and a lot of dialogue. 

It never truly reaches heights of being scary (or at least, it didn't for me) but home invasion is always going to be unsettling... and here the invaders are not dramatic, masked, silent ghouls of unknown motive; they are loud kids with bad attitudes, little empathy, and when it comes to leader Rian (Jumayn Hunter, who actually starred in Eden Lake also) a real streak of cruelty.

The plot couldn't get much simpler; married couple Christine and Mike (Rachael Blake and Tom Butcher) settle down for an evening in - if I had one complaint, it was that the setting up of their dislike for one another was done so painstakingly, we were led to believe something would happen later to explain this, but it doesn't - and while they're eating dinner, a group of teens ring the doorbell and push their way into the house, taking the pair hostage. They say they want to speak to Sebastian, Christine and Mike's son. He's due home within the hour and they're going to wait. They assault Mike to subdue him and tie both up with gaffer tape.

What follows is a slow, stressful climb in unease as time passes, tempers fray and cruelties heighten. Much is done with off-screen violence, using the classic "we'll just have you hear what's happening and imagining far worse than we could ever show/afford to show" to great effect. Screaming and thumping reverberate through the house on a couple of occasions, and it makes up the nastier moments of the film as both the audience and other characters grimace and think about what's happening.

Even though this is a white middle-class couple up against working class kids, it never particularly feels like A Statement On Class. Honestly it feels more straightforward than that. It feels real in the sense that you can imagine Sebastian (whom we wait the entire runtime to see and barely catch a real glimpse of, a touch that I liked) is a mouthy little shit who acts like he's a big deal and got caught saying the wrong thing about the wrong person. I have known people like this - I think we all have. 

As nasty as Cherry Tree Lane gets, it never feels over the top. There are also some stand-out singular moments and shot compositions; watching one of the gang browse the DVD shelf in slow motion, tossing them aside, and the appearance of Christine in the foreground towards the end.

This one was a bit of a grower, but ultimately it left me feeling satisfied that I'd checked it out. I've been feeling pretty uninspired by horror movies of late... or locked into a perpetual scroll of streaming services through fear of wasting time on something shitty. There's so much shit out there! This piqued my interest - the clincher being it runs less than 90mins - and I'm glad it did. Oh, and anyone remember UNKLE? They did the music!

Cherry Tree Lane is currently streaming on Tubi! Honestly, Tubi is making me re-evaluate some life choices. It's free, their catalogue is MASSIVE and even if you have to wade through some crap, they have gems hidden in there too. 

I'd recommend giving this a spin if you want a short, sharp, English take on home invasion.*

*I feel I ought to say, however, CW: sexual assault. It's handled without exploitation, or lingering on the abuse like many movies tend to, but heads up that it happens here. 

Triangle (2009)

Triangle really keeps the audience on its toes; seeming to be one thing before becoming something else entirely.

Written and directed by Christopher Smith (the man who also brought us solid British horrors Severance and Creep) and starring Melissa George and Liam Hemsworth, this takes us on a journey from shore to sea and back again - and there's a palpable sense of unease and doom the entire time.

Mostly empty yet symmetrical shot compositions are my jam.

I went in knowing minimal details and that really was the best way, so I'm keeping this short and sweet. This one is confusing and curious, with several moments of breathtaking beauty and grimness (in a good way!). There's also some questionable CGI, but just go with it, trust me.

For fans of horror of the mind-bending variety. Streaming on Shudder now.

Prevenge (2016)

Prevenge is a beautifully British, blackly comic entry into the pregnancy horror subgenre (of which I am a fan, if you hadn't already guessed).

Written, directed and starring Alice Lowe, shot in just 11 days and all while 8 months pregnant. Can we all just take a moment to say "badass"? 

This title has been on my radar for a little while, but upon learning the above I had to promote it to top of my watchlist. However much I did or didn't end up liking the film, its own conception and birth story was phenomenally impressive!

Lowe stars as Ruth, a recently widowed and heavily pregnant woman who, when we meet her is making her way through a list of people to murder. 

The reason for their deaths is made clearer as the story unfolds, but the main drive behind Ruth's homicidal behaviour is the fact she can hear her unborn baby commanding her to do it.

And I loved that the drama wasn't really in Ruth's grappling with this task - in fact, she doesn't really seem to mind this wet work. This woman is lost in the world after losing her husband; the only thing she has is the baby. So she does as she's told.

❝Baby knows what to do. Baby will tell you what to do.❞

− Ruth's midwife, unknowingly endorsing the deaths of others.

When see Ruth briefly fail to execute these internal instructions, she experiences a violent physical reaction (taking place in an empty subway/underpass, this may well be an homage to Andrzej Żuławski’s Possession, a film I'm desperate to see but haven't yet managed to, although I've read a lot about it!). In another scene, she carries on a deadpan, darkly funny conversation with "Baby", bemoaning the demands children place on parents.

How Ruth is able to continue these murders without being caught is never really discussed, but ultimately she's forced to question the true origins of the voice she's been hearing, with a climax that makes you wonder if she indeed actually cares.

There's a quote that's stayed with me that I think speaks volumes for the character of Ruth. Widowed, adrift and alone in a world full of creeps, arseholes and overly chirpy midwives, she has no connection to anyone now, apart from the baby inside her. 

❝I'm not grieving, I'm gestating... Fucking rage.❞

In a break from her normally dry, disdainful demeanor, she spits these words at a softly-spoken potential victim as he tries to calm her down, in a moment of pure emotion and vulnerability. A "force of nature", like the midwife claimed in one of several scenes with her that are loaded with double meaning.

The fact that most other characters are painted so broadly (pervert, idiot, bitch, etc) was not a problem for me, as I associated with Ruth more than I probably should have. I, too, am eternally annoyed and irritated by the decisions other people make. I really understood her scorn and the way she moved through the world carrying it along with her child.

Prevenge is streaming on Shudder right now, and well worth checking out. Watch that title screen and tell me it didn't make you excited, at least!

Mum & Dad (2008).

It takes a certain something to get under the skin of a horror fan, I think. Not only have we seen a fair amount of messed up stuff, we actively seek it out. That alone usually means our expectations of "sick and twisted" are way worse than your average Joe. Our points of reference for fucked up are, well... fucked up.

This film includes a scene where a man wanks off using a disembodied uterus. There, I said it. Moving swiftly on...

When I speak about Mum & Dad, the word I keep using is "solid". It seems appropriate. There's nothing extraneous about it, everything seems to serve a purpose. At 84mins long it's a simple, stout little flick.

Lena, a quiet Polish girl, is lured from her workplace of Heathrow airport into the home of a couple known only as Mum and Dad. With the co-operation of their adopted children (read: promoted past victims) Birdie and Elbie, she is held captive and subjected to torture of just about every kind.

The viewer and Lena both, are plunged into this world. The first time we see Dad (Perry Benson, someone who most Brits view as anything but threatening in his roles) he's straight from dismembering a victim; covered in blood, panting and agitated he looks ready to destroy Lena in at least three ways. Then in comes Mum, a soothing voice and apparent good cop to his bad. Of course, it transpires that she is just a colder more controlled kind of insane.

The foursome function as a family unit would, but with some shocking tweaks to the traditional. As they eat breakfast in the kitchen, a porn film plays noisily in the background; household chores include disposing of entrails and burning the clothes of victims. In moments of anger Dad shouts phrases one might hear from an irate parent ("When you live under my roof you'll abide by my rules!" etc) but they have far more disturbing consequences than a simple grounding.

Once Lena is in the house, this is where the story plays out, with only frustrating glimpses of the oblivious outside world. She attempts to escape and is punished multiple times, and one of the more alarming involving her being shut in a suitcase and beaten with a mallet.

Time after time she tries and fails. She discovers an atrocity in the attic and a fellow hostage she can't save in another room. Her spirit is still there, but it is dwindling. As she grows thinner and more bruised, we are forced to wonder if she might just give up and accept her place in this perverse household.

Her very last bid for freedom is like the film itself: bloody and intelligently paced. I didn't feel able to guess with any confidence how this story would conclude and I liked that.

This appears to be director Steven Sheil's biggest project to date and it shows - in a good way! Keeping things uncomplicated means keeping things strong. The narrative, characters and location all feel as well rounded as they need to be. The film has weight.

Definitely one to check out if nasty little Brit flicks are something you get a kick out of.

Feast (2005).

Feast saved me from my periodic genre-grump by being a perfect balance of guts and guffaws.

It's 83mins of fine horror comedy, involving but not limited to: nasty monsters, limb dismemberment, geysers of blood.

And slime.

Oh, and Henry Rollins.

Occasionally wearing pink sweat pants.

This is another to add to the number of films I've been watching lately which are set in one location. Or, "submarine films" as director John Gulager describes them. It's a favourite tactic for film makers with a smaller budget as it keeps costs down, and I'm something of a fan of such flicks, I'm starting to realise.

A one-location deal tends to intensify. Without the bells and whistles distraction of a regular change of locale, more attention has to be paid to everything else. As ridiculous as it may sound, it takes the film one step closer to theatre.

Let's not get too serious, though. We are still talking about a film whose sequels are called Sloppy Seconds and The Happy Finish.

So the set-up here, as I'm sure you can guess: a motley group of employees and customers are trapped in a bar in the middle of nowhere - which just so happens to be under a nighttime assault from freakish monsters.

Feast decides to opt out of giving us any explanation for what these things are, or how they came to be there. With a film like this, this is more often than not the way to go. Back story, what's that? Let's just chop some heads off and throw blood in a girl's face.

The characters are introduced in the opening sequence by way of freeze frame sepia-tinted profiles. A bit like top trumps. This sounds overdone and a little groan-inducing, but it works in prompting the first of many laughs and instantly cluing the audience into who's who...

Trivia: this is the director's father.

Quite some time is spent establishing these character profiles... before roughly half of the cast get immediately wiped out in the initial monster attack. "Did that just happen?!" moments are one of my favourite things about the horror genre, and Feast hands them out unabashedly. It's nice and disconcerting not to be able to instantly guess who'll be dragging themselves over the ridiculously gore soaked finish line.

This is a film of simple pleasures of the Evil Dead variety. Practical effects and gross comedy are both out in force, often at the same time. Behold: a character peeks out of the shutters into the night, declaring: "I can't see a thing..." and then proceeds to get his eyeball torn out. While the optical nerve is being ripped from his head, he screams "Gimme my eye back!". This small scene encapsulates the spirit of the film. You as the viewer wince, laugh, feel a little nauseous. Perfecto.

"We build a doll and throw it through a window!"

Just about everyone involved in Feast was obsessed with gettin' as messy as possible and they say as much in the making-of documentary. The 'creature and makeup effects designer' Gary J. Tunnicliffe brought the gore using what one of the actors calls "80s retro" methods; delightful practical stuff which sees blood, latex, bone and hair being tossed around from the get-go. It takes some vision, apparently, to act with what looks like a stuffed animal as your co-star - but the results are so glorious!

The featurette also tells of this film's unconventional birth, through a reality TV show named Project Greenlight. Gulager (who was directing wedding videos prior to getting this gig) comes across as an enthusiastic filmmaker and I'm interested to see what, if anything, he works on in the future. I've seen about ten minutes of Feast II: Sloppy Seconds and that was quite enough... Here's hoping he's wiser or luckier with his next pick.

Splinter (2008).

Splinter was one of those films that I didn't hear much chatter about, but kept crossing paths with the artwork. This alone had me interested in checking it out, I mean, how could it not?

This is another small cast, one location deal. Set for the most part in a petrol station in the middle of nowhere, the unfortunates who have encountered this thing barricade themselves in and have to fend it off/figure out a means of escape, which doesn't involve being part of a human meat finger buffet.

It takes a while to get going, I will say that. When there hadn't been a sniff of gore at around 25mins in, I was starting to slip into "Eh, Whatever"-ville. Thankfully, at just that moment a whole can of WHAT THE...? gets opened.

What I found interesting about this beastie, is that like The Thing (1982) this life form seems to regard and use individual parts of the human body independently. It wears us as a kind of ill-fitting suit, or utility belt. When confronted by something it wants to attack, the whole body isn't turned, it just directs the nearest body part towards its target - even if this means breaking or dislocating the part in question. It's kinda simple when you think about it, why would an invading organism respect the fleshy outer layer as we do? It's not theirs. But seeing it executed on film, it's really brutal in a way you don't see very often.

The below cap shows one victim, overcome by the "Splinter". It makes her bash her face into the glass again and again in an effort to break into the building and get to the survivors. Our bodies are just tools to them.

It is really nasty. Once infected, we are basically turned into barely recognisable, hulking, twitching, chirping lumps of meat.

In one of the DVD extras, director Toby Wilkins states that the horror from Splinter comes in not being killed by the monster. The fact that it gets inside you and takes you over is what is so terrifying a prospect, rather than just being bumped off outright.

One of the most gruesome moments in the film actually comes courtesy of the survivors themselves. When one of them realises he is infected, the remaining two perform an amputation of his arm to try and isolate said infection. Their tool of choice is a Stanley (utility) knife. Errrk. Loving the dialogue though; as he screams in pain while they saw through his limb, this is uttered in a comforting tone: "It's okay, we're cutting your arm off." Er, thanks?

Turns out - who'd have thunk it? - you can't cut through bone with a Stanley. So they have to finish the job by dropping a breeze block on the partially severed appendage, in order to take it off completely. Blimey.

They nailed the special effects here, I felt sick to my stomach watching this!

In fact, the effects in and of themselves deserve a big mention. Wilkins - who has worked more in the visual effects field than directing, according to IMDb - wanted to achieve as much as possible with practical: "I wanted the actors to have something to really respond to, rather than just a tennis ball on a stick."

For the monster work he found a gymnast who, when put into heavy make-up, could bend and crawl in an entirely inhuman fashion, in order to look like a broken body being worn by the parasite. CG was used only where absolutely necessary; everything else was wires, puppets, trick photography and the creativity of the special effects crew (info gleaned here).

Wilkins' inventiveness and enthusiasm shows. This is one of the most imaginative and arresting movie monsters I have seen in a good while.

It's such a shame then - especially taking in consideration the slow start - that the film seems to lose its way as the end nears.

Perhaps they weren't sure how to wrap things up? Leading to the climax is an overly long sequence where the male lead proves his mettle, but it feels silly and ill thought out. And yes, I realise calling something within a film themed such as this, "silly" is a bit pointless, but there must have been a better achilles heel to reveal of this thing. Or at least a less dumb way to exploit it.

I think this is the reason I felt a little unfulfilled as the credits rolled. It's such an interesting, fucked up idea for a horror critter that the film's load appears to have been blown on that, and that alone. The plot didn't have a strong enough back to carry the weight of such a cool creature.

Have an icky parasite movie night, featuring this and The Thing. Just be sure to end strong with Carpenter's effort.

Last House On The Left (2009).

--This review has a cap from one of the more sexually unsavoury scenes of the film. Just a warning--

First, let's get the frivolity out of the way. People I recognised in this version of The Last House On The Left and where I found out they were from:

• Monica Potter - Nic Cage's wife in Con Air
• 'Justin' - the son in Unbreakable
• 'Paige' - Michael Cera's love interest in Superbad (remember "blow-jay"?)

Okay now that's done, we can get serious.

To be honest, I wasn't even going to bother with this film until my LOVEFiLM list was a wee bit lighter. Nothing against remakes per se; I've come out the other side of the seething hatred for them and into numb acceptance, with the realisation that they can be good, on occasion. They rarely make it to the top of my films to-do list though.

Then a friend offered me his DVD on loan and ultimately, I liked it a lot more than I anticipated doing. Well, "liked" is perhaps an inappropriate word... "respected" is possibly better. Just so long as I never have to see the end sequence again - but more on that later.

This is a stunningly shot "re imagining" if you will, of Wes Craven's 1972 film. I've not watched the original in a while so this isn't going to be a comparison-based review, unless I can't help but draw parallels. The director this time around is Dennis Iliadis and yes, it was a new name to me, too. But if there's any justice in the world, this won't be the last we hear of him.

We know the plot, but in a nutshell this is a tale of three parts: Establishing the Collingwood family as a happy, supportive unit of three; following the daughter, Mari, as she meets with a friend but then falls into the hands of some truly fucked up villains; the final acts of vengeance committed by Mari's parents as they learn of her earlier ordeal.

The scene-setting shots of "normality" and family life reminded me very much of Sofia Coppola's Virgin Suicides. Such beauty, exquisitely framed and lit. They are almost otherworldly in their feel but also unnerving, somehow. Even if this were a film we didn't already know the outcome of, there is a distinct sense of foreboding hanging over every minute of this opening act.

Together with the outstanding score by John Murphy - an Englishman! - we are very aware that this lovely family, in this lovely house, is not gonna be so for very much longer.

Before Mari heads out to meet her friend Paige, there is a long sequence following her getting out of the shower and getting dressed. To start with, I found the inclusion of this confusing. If this were a slasher film or anything of that ilk, then the ubiquitous shower scene (and tit shot - although we don't get one of those here) is a given; but this film isn't like that and I wondered why we were being made to watch this girl being blatantly fetishised?

In the context of the whole film, all becomes clear. When the gang later attempt to force the youngest member and Krug's son, Justin, into sex with Mari, again we have close-ups of hands on her skin and clothes - but this time they aren't her own.

Justin succeeds in refusing to force himself onto her and so his father then steps up. The images that follow shed new light on the earlier collection of post-shower shots. We see them to be a direct reference and a forbear to when we are forced to watch Mari's clothes being ripped from her, first for Justin's benefit, then for Krug's.

It's really very clever and makes what is a harrowing scene of sexual assault all the more disturbing. We are a part of it, we become complicit, because we remember her underwear, for christ's sake, from earlier on. We regarded her dewy skin as she pulled on her clothes not minutes (our time, not hers) before - now we watch as she has those same items pulled from her. It's a brilliant and horrifying way of entangling the audience with the act.

This whole section of the film is difficult to watch, obviously. It is genuinely uncomfortable stuff. When Justin is being pushed towards Mari, screaming, when Paige gets stabbed before we, or indeed even she knows what's happening... and then Krug rapes Mari.

It's not graphic in the slightest, but it's one of the most prolonged rape scenes I think I've ever seen. Like Mari herself, we are given no get-out from this nightmare. We are forced (unless we turn off the DVD of course) to sit and endure every intensely awful moment. My god, IMDb trivia says that the rape scene took seventeen hours to film, I can't even imagine.

After this attack is when - what I took to be at least - an homage to the original takes place. Remember the post rape moment in Wes Craven's film? The villains survey one another sheepishly and wipe the blood from their hands, bringing to mind naughty children?

The equivalent here is when Krug stands up from raping Mari, Sadie (who had participated, in that she'd held the girl down and removed her clothes) slowly raises her eyes to meet his. She then smiles, awkwardly. It's a tiny thing but pretty much shattering in its inclusion.

Mari being shot at in the lake brings about more stunning shots that I have to include here:

The final act of this story always takes me by surprise, somehow. It's perverse really, as the whole weight of the movie is really behind the "middle class gone feral in vengeance" idea; and yet it always slips my mind for a second that there is more to see after we have witnessed the girls being tortured.

It is interesting to note that the earlier technique of laying civilised, wholesome groundwork is repeated here. When Krug and his gang take shelter in the Collingwood house, before either party know exactly how they are related, we are once again treated to scene-setting static shots of a cosy family home. Drink it in chaps, drink it in before the blood starts splashing the walls.

The tension resulting from the coming together of these six individuals is handled perfectly. It's an exercise in baby-step sized increments of suspense.

The gang initially remain just the right side of weird, provoking thoughtful looks and the odd comment between the Collingwood's, but not much else. The actors nail it to be honest. They are less histrionic than their 1972 equivalents - but that is what's needed here. Alternatively, they are quiet, menacing and most frightening of all: strange. Something about them is off. For instance, when Mrs Collingwood is showing them to the guesthouse, they cram into the bathroom behind her.

It's not psychopathic behaviour by any means, it just doesn't seem quite right. Nothing too out of the ordinary to set the alarm bells ringing but enough to wake the spidey senses.

And then comes the climatic bloodbath.

If Sadie's tight-lipped smile to her beloved is my first favourite moment of the film, then the glance exchanged between Mr and Mrs Collingwood, as they both realise they are about to commit murder, is my second.

No words are exchanged, because none are needed. We also know by their grim determination that neither want to, nor will, back down from this. This is the step they must take to avenge their daughter. "We have to be ready to do... anything."

It's a simple but powerful moment - which is quite something, coming from someone who can't usually look at Monica Potter without getting LeAnn Rimes stuck in her head.

The final dispatching of the gang is again, right on the money. Until Krug. Oh god, why. Heed my advice and turn this film off once you hit the 1:40:04 mark, because something ridiculous and uncalled for happens that just undermines all the great work before it. I get angry just thinking about it!

I'm not going to tell you what it is. All I am going to say is that it pissed me off this was allowed to be included and I hope that Iliadis' hand was forced into doing so. He cannot have made a movie this good, then thought that ending was a suitable way to finish it.

This movie comes highly recommended, however I repeat: turn off at 1:40:04 and save yourself from the jarring, superfluous final scene and the use of 'Dirge' by Death In Vegas (one of my favourite songs) directly afterwards. Putting a silly hat on a great flick is one thing... but don't soundtrack it with a song I adore as well, argh!