What I Watched This Weekend #1

Most of my weekends are spent at my partners house, and during the weekend we usually watch the episodes of our currently favourite running shows that have been on that week, along with a few films. The types of films that we watch vary greatly, from recent blockbusters to old cult classics, and from big budget to ‘so bad it’s good’, and unfortunately also a few ‘that was absolutely terrible’. One of the reasons that we watch a lot of the old cult classics is that my partner has never really seen a lot of them. She was never the biggest fan of sci-fi or horror films, and lots of films simply passed her by. Being a huge fan of sci-fi and horror, and just film in general, I usually bring one or two of my favourite films that she hasn’t seen that I think she would enjoy and we watch them together. Sometimes it’s also films that I haven’t seen, because I may have only just heard about them, or I just simply hadn’t gotten around to watching them over the years. The posts may also include shows that we binge watch on occasion.

Image source: https://pixabay.com/en/film-film-roll-theater-cinema-681993/

Depending on your taste in films, some of these may be of interest to you. Consider the lists to be a blend of those ‘films you may have missed’ lists, along with reviews of possibly more popular and accessible films. Sometimes I may pad the list with films that we watched before I started this (hopefully) regular blog, because they were simply good films and favourites of mine, or films that my partner really enjoyed and was surprised by how much she enjoyed them. However, mostly they will be filled with the films that we watched over the weekend, my thoughts on them, how much we enjoyed them, and in the case of horror films – how much they made my partner jump, dig her nails into me or hide behind me!

Image source: https://pixabay.com/en/criticism-write-a-review-review-3083099/

So, allow me to introduce you to the first What I Watched This Weekend post!

(All stills from films taken from DVDs and used under fair use)

War On Everyone (2016)
Runtime: 1hr 38mins.
Director: John Michael McDonagh
Stars: Michael Pena (End of Watch, Observe and Report), Alexander Skarsgard (True Blood, The Legend of Tarzan), Theo James (Divergent, How It Ends), Caleb Landry Jones (Get Out, Three Billboards), Tessa Thompson (Thor:Ragnarok, Westworld), David Wilmot (Black Sails, The Alienist)

War On Everyone (2016) is a film that will either grab the viewer or it won’t, at least if the reviews on IMDB are anything to go by. We absolutely loved it, and it grabbed us from the very opening scene. The film is a darkly comedic, unconventional, buddy cop film. Though it is a British made film, the film was made in America with a mostly American cast. It stars Michael Pena and Alexander Skarsgard as partners in the Albuquerque police department. This is not the usual ‘good guys vs bad guys’ dynamic, these two undercover officers exist in a slightly more corrupt form. It would be wrong to define them as ‘bad’, for they are not ‘bad guys’ in the sense that many images of the corrupt officer may bring to mind. However, it would also be wrong to simply call them ‘morally grey’. They set out to be corrupt, doing drugs, taking bribes, and simply earning through less than reputable means. It is an interesting dynamic, and one that works well thanks to the natural charm and charisma of Micahel Pena, and the harrowing backstory hinted at for Alexander Skarsgard’s character.

The story focuses mostly on their attempt to intercept and steal the money of a heist that some local criminals are planning, the criminals led by Theo James who plays the mastermind masterfully. His performance is captivating and disturbing at the same time. He plays a well educated English lord from a well to do family, and he plays it well. His underling is played by Caleb Landry Jones, who gives an electrifying, and incredibly creepy, performance; playing a character who comes across as a mix of Mick Jagger, David Bowie and Freddy Krueger all rolled into one. The film is worth watching for the performance of James and Jones alone!

The style of the film is somewhat reminiscent of Tarantino in many ways. It is made as a kind of homage to 1970’s cop shows and cop films, with tough guy cops, over the top criminals, big muscle cars, and with dialogue that is both mundane and witty. However, some of the narrative choices may put some off. The film tends to meander along, feeling slightly disjointed in many ways. However, we found that this worked very well, suiting the story, the style, and the characters. It also makes some very bold cinematic choices. Something that I found of huge interest, and very clever, was the way the characters were written. At the surface level, all of the criminals, and to some extent the main two characters, are written almost like larger than life caricatures, playing off stereotypes on occasion. However, underneath these caricatures were written characters with depth. It gave an odd, and interesting, contrast, making them incredibly interesting, as well as incredibly fun characters to watch; and we also see these characters change and grow as the film goes on. It is in these characters that the film’s strength lies, along with its witty dialogue.

As I say, this film is not for everyone, but if you enjoy dark comedy, with interesting characters and witty dialogue, chances are you will come away from this film with having a positive experience. It is definitely one for those who like their heroes in a more morally dubious form. The writing is funny, sharp, and smart, while at the same time being over the top and verging on the absurd on occasion; as is the story, the narrative, and the action.

8.5/10

Funny Games (1997)
Runtime: 1hr 48mins
Director: Michael Haneke
Stars: Susanne Lothar, Urlrich Muhe, Arno Frisch, Frank Giering

Most people will probably have seen Funny Games (1997) by now, or possibly its 2007 US remake by the same director starring Tim Roth and Naomi Watts. If you have not seen either version, then you really should! It’s hard recommending one version over the other, as the US version is an almost shot for shot remake of the original, and both versions contain qualities that the other does not, making neither version any less recommendable than the other. However, if you’re someone who does not like watching a foreign language film with subtitles, then it becomes easier as the choice will clearly be the US English remake; the original being German language. In future I may write a comparison of the two versions, listing what I like about each version, what works better in each version, and the like. However, for now, this is simply my experience of the original German version.

Though this is a decades old film, it is one that I simply had not gotten around to watching. I had watched the US remake a few weeks previously, though without my partner as she had fallen asleep before I put it on. However, she did watch this version, and thoroughly enjoyed it, as did I. The story itself is about a couple visiting their holiday home with their young son and family pet. Not long after arriving they encounter their long-time neighbour, who is in the company of two unknown young men. After introducing themselves the couple settle into their cottage. It doesn’t take long before there is a knock at the door, and Peter (Frank Giering) is introducing himself. Coming across as slightly shy and nervous, but very polite, he asks Anna (Susanne Lothar) to borrow some eggs on behalf of the previously introduced neighbour. Soon after we see Paul (Arno Frisch) introducing himself, and it is from here that things start to take a darker road for the couple and their young son (and their beloved family pet too, sadly!).

The film is set over a night and the next morning, as Peter and Paul subject the couple and their son to intimidation, humiliation, psychological torture, and eventually violence. Though most of the violence happens off-screen, this in no way lessens the impact that it has upon its viewer. Holding to the old adage that violence imagined is often far more frightening than violence experienced, at least as far as storytelling is concerned anyway. Frisch and Giering play their roles incredibly, with Peter and Paul not being the usual horror stereotypes of the violent criminal. They are calm and aloof through the entire encounter, with only occasional bursts of aggression. The violence coming mainly in a psychological form as they toy with their victims, because, as they say, there is always the entertainment value to consider. The film is tightly shot, giving a sense of claustrophobia throughout. As the terror increases, the angles of the camera work tighten up and close in, moving from large sweeping shots to much more personal and intimate angles, with most of the film taking place in a living room. The film very cleverly invites the viewer to become part of the torture as a willing onlooker, through both dialogue and the odd and occasional fourth wall break.

It also allows the viewer to form their own emotions during the couple’s ordeal, as there is no accompanying music that attempts to manipulate emotional responses from the viewer. We are shown the scenes raw, and undiluted. This is a very brave choice of course, and means that the acting must be of the highest quality in order to draw the viewer in, and to allow the viewer to form an emotional bond with the family in question. Thankfully the acting, and the direction, is of the highest quality, and this bold narrative choice pays off very well. In some ways working better than it does in the US remake as the actors portraying the family do not have a ‘Hollywood’ look about them, looking more like an average family than Tim Roth and Naomi Watts (the actors playing the husband and wife in the US remake) ever could. There are no jump scares in this film, it is not that type of horror. It is a horror based on possibilities, and based on the idea that it is not always the loud and violent looking thug that we need to fear. Sometimes violence and death comes with a polite smile, and finds its way into our homes through the most mundane of means.

You do not necessarily have to be a fan of horror to enjoy this film, however, it will appeal most to those who enjoy simple thrillers or horrors. The pacing is slow, but it needs to be for this kind of tale. The dialogue is very well written, and the acting of the highest quality. Peter and Paul are played very well by Frisch and Giering, with a nonchalance and nuance that many actors may not have gone for. If you enjoy a good character driven horror, one that relies on atmosphere and characters rather than loud noises and manipulated emotional responses, then this is most certainly a film that you should find your way to watching.

9/10

Ghost Stories (2017)
Runtime: 1hr 38mins
Directors: Jeremy Dyson, Andy Nyman
Stars: Martin Freeman (Sherlock, The Hobbit), Andy Nyman (Dead Set, Kick-Ass 2), Paul Whitehouse (The Fast Show, The Death of Stalin), Alex Lawther (The End of the Fucking World, Black Mirror)

Ghost Stories is an anthology horror film, comprising of 3 individual tales of horror linked together through a main narrative – the advertising claiming it to be ‘the scariest British horror film in years’. The main narrative involves Professor Phillip Goldman (Andy Nyman), a professional sceptic who has made it his life’s work to debunk psychics and tales of supernatural experiences. We are introduced to him as he debunks a professional psychic, bursting on-stage to explain the tricks the psychic uses to fool his unwitting victims. From there we are given some exposition and backstory to the Professor, and we find that he sees himself as someone continuing the work of a previous famous sceptic. Goldman receives a mysterious package drawing him to a location where he finds that this sceptic that he looks up to, who he previously thought dead, is actually still alive, and living a life of recluse in a caravan; and it is through this encounter that we are introduced to the three tales that make up most of this anthology tale. The reclusive sceptic gives Goldman a file that contains three cases that the sceptic claims made him give up his sceptic ways, stating that these cases were ‘unexplainable’; sending Goldman out to investigate the for himself in the hopes of making him ‘see the light’.

The first of the three cases involve Paul Whitehouse as an ex-security guard who has a ghostly encounter during one of his nightshifts in an old abandoned asylum. Goldman arrives to interview Whitehouse’s character, and using the interview as a device to move into the actual tale itself. The tale, while fun and full of atmosphere, is pretty standard fare. It is claustrophobic, but a reasonably generic ghost tale. It did make my partner jump, and it doesn’t use the usual cheap loud noise jump scare tactics that many modern horror films use. It is done using pacing, timing, and atmosphere, it is just let down by being a reasonably generic ghost tale. Paul Whitehouse is very good as the security guard, and he does help rise the story above its generic-ness, and make it enjoyable to watch.

The second tale involves Alex Lawther, who is absolutely fantastic in this part. He plays a paranoid young man living at home with his parents, surrounded by images of the supernatural as he attempts to discover what happened to him during an encounter in the woods late one night after a party. Once again, it is a somewhat generic tale of a broken down car in the woods late at night, beginning with Lawther running something over unexpectedly. Thankfully it is not the usual hitch-hiker accident type tale that we commonly see, however, it is still a somewhat generic tale of boy trapped in the car stalked by an unknown supernatural being. It also is not a ghost tale though, instead being a tale of a demon encounter. To give some indication of it’s predictability, as soon as it moved into the actual tale of the incident I told my partner what I thought was going to happened and it played out almost exactly that way. Lawther makes it enjoyable to watch, playing the part very well, his superb acting is let down somewhat by the tale itself though.

The third and final tale in the anthology involves Goldman visiting Martin Freeman, an ex-investment banker who relays the tale of his wife’s pregnancy and the strange happenings that came with it. Martin Freeman is very good in this section, as he is always is in anything he stars in, however, he is very much Martin Freeman in this role. Making his performance one that never really draws you into the tale itself, and the tale is not one that particularly draws you in either. It has atmosphere, and as with the first tale, it did make my partner jump. It’s just that, like the previous two tales, it was predictable and generic. Though I will give this tale a little more credit, as it has a shock ending that I will not spoilt that does raise it above the generic feel that comes before it.

After the three tales are finished we are drawn back into the narrative involving Professor Goldman, as he returns to confront the man he once looked up to. Returning to tell him that he remains unconvinced by the three cases, and that they no more convinced him than any other experience he has investigated. From here we are introduced to a fourth and final supernatural tale, this time involving the Goldman character. This one again uses a pretty common narrative that we have seen many times in horror short stories before, though like the previous three tales is still enjoyable to watch.

The main problem with this film is the ending. The generic-ness of the included tales can be forgiven, as they are told well. The atmosphere in each one does its job, and the actors involved are good at what they do. The ending is something of a let-down though. Unfortunately telling any part of what the ending is will spoil it, something I really do not wish to do in case one of you decides to watch it. I will say though, be prepared to be let down somewhat by the choice that the writers made with how to finish this collection of supernatural tales off.

It’s hard to recommend this film, it’s not one that I would say that you should go out of your way to watch, and would have been very disappointed if I would have gone to the cinema to see it. However, if there is little else to watch, it is enjoyable until the ending. As long as you do not go in expecting too much you will not be disappointed, but at the same time you will not be overwhelmed. Neither me or my partner thought it was bad, we just felt it was very average, though we both really enjoyed Alex Lawther’s scenes.

5/10