Review
Repression largely reminds me of the narrative developed within The Sixth Sense. Just like in that movie we have a new therapist, in this case, Marianne Winter (Thekla Reuten) examines the case of her acquired patient, Manny (Elijah Wolf.) it is an intense relationship that will reveal much darker connotations later in the movie. A narrative that delves into the recesses of a damaged psyche. A child in his formative years that has been inevitably damaged through no fault of his own.  A story so cerebral that will leave you scratching your head when it’s all said and done.


The opening scene of Dr. McVittie (Peter Mullan) in psychological distress is the shock moment, a fisherman reeling the viewer in. Why would the character do this to himself? What’s lurking within the halls of the hospital to have a psychiatrist trying to kill himself? Is it a case of one too many patients and like a mirror effect, he too becomes too ill to fight the demons crawling for dominance within him?

From there on we cut to Dr. Marianne Winters arriving in Scotland to settle into her new life. The scenes are what you come to expect from horror movies set in Scotland. It’s atmospheric, with its moody dark tones being at the forefront of the cinematography. It’s a big change for Marianne, leaving America for Scotland after the death of her husband in a devastating car accident, it could be the change she needs to leave it all behind. What if though, it’s a bigger nightmare than the one she left behind.
​
Meeting her young patients gives her a sense of calm, if she can help them with their troubles then it would make the move a successful one. She meets a new patient, Manny. He’s an enigma certainly, but he puts her on edge. He knows things he shouldn’t, knows about a gun in her desk drawer, his drawings seeming to depict the future. She struggles to make sense of what he knows and how he knows it. They both struggle for control, the boy becoming more malevolent the more sessions they have together.

 
A coming-of-age tale that has the potential of bastardising a boy’s teenage years. If you are going into this thinking there’s going to be a shed ton of gore or killing, you’d be dead wrong (see what I did there) Duncan Skiles makes it abundantly clear from the start who the killer is so the guesswork is taken away immediately, so he creates tension elsewhere. An atmosphere with eerie woods, deserted roads, and a crackling undertone of what is to come. He focuses heavily on the quiet suburban town in Kentucky, rich in its Christian beliefs and values. How on earth can the killer be living amongst them? They all care and enrich each other’s lives Need a hand carrying the shopping in? Don’t question it. Need a hand changing that tyre? Don’t question it. Need someone killed? Don’t think twice.

The movie opens with the killer being inactive for a decade. However, the community has not forgotten and holds a memorial for the slain women. Tyler (Charlie Plummer) lives with his sister, quiet and reserved mother (Samantha Mathis), and scout leader father (Dylan McDermott). After finding some rather questionable pornography that belongs to his father, Tyler starts to get suspicious. Is this the kind of thing that gets father going? Is he not all he seems to be? What if he isn’t all Christian values and helping thy neighbour? What if he is a dangerous psychopath?

With the help of his friend Kassi (Madisen Beaty) who has her own motives for researching The Clovehitch Killer they look at the evidence and break into his father’s locked shed and find some damning evidence. Why does his father have polaroids in a box and a diagram detailing “the wheel of pain?”

Hi there, I’m Yvonne.Book Reviewer/ General all-round Nerd
Well, what can i say about me? I’m a 32 year old married woman and mum to 3 crazy boys, aged 12,5 and 3. My eldest has a genetic condition that causes a visual impairment so as you can imagine life can be very chaotic and provides many challenges along the way but I would 100% never change any of them. They fulfil my life beyond measure.
​
I Adore Books – I adore shouting about books! I’m a reviewer of all genres, whether that be Epic Fantasy, Gothic Horror, a historical romance or a race-to-the-end thriller. I will read them all.

Whether you enjoy the final Jurassic World movie will depend on what you’re hoping to get out of it. 


Do you want to see the old cast reunited and plenty of nods to earlier films? You’re gonna love it.


Are you hoping for a carefully thought-out science fiction plot and believable situations of peril? You’re gonna be disappointed.


Want lots of dinosaurs on the screen with new, real dinosaurs and no silly hybrids? This is the movie for you!


Is character development and relatability important to you? Then you probably want to avoid this movie.


Jurassic World: Dominion has been receiving mixed reviews online, and it’s easy to see why. It’s the final instalment of what turned out to be a run of six movies. Overall, it could have been so much better, but there’s a clear sense that the writers wanted to wrap everything up and chose to stick to a tried and tested formula for the rest of the movie. In some ways that worked brilliantly; in other ways it fell flat on its face.


I saw a lot of reviews that said Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard looked bored in their roles or that their acting was wooden. And while they didn’t sparkle as much as they did in the first Jurassic World film (let’s just pretend that the second didn’t exist), this is partly down to the film itself rather than their acting talents or enthusiasm for the franchise.


One key element is that a lot of Pratt’s appeal in the first two movies was being charming, competent, proactive, and witty. But now those characteristics have been spread out between Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. In particular, all the comedy relief lines were given to Goldblum. There were some memorable future classics in there like Malcolm’s amazed exclamation: “You made a promise to a dinosaur?” And his attempts at assisting Ellie and Claire over walkie-talkies to shut down the main power (sound familiar?) included the wonderful line: “Do you see a big green button? I can categorically tell you that you mustn’t press the big green button.”


And while I have a great respect for Pratt and Howard as actors (Howard’s performance as Ivy in The Village was one of my particular favourites), it’s got to be said that they just can’t quite measure up when starring opposite the original trio who have between them 148 years of acting experience. The minute Neill, Dern, and Goldblum walk in front of the camera, they owned the scene in a way that none of the other actors did. 


Which leads us onto the good parts of the film: the original cast. The three of them possess such screen presences that it’s a joy to watch them even in a particularly mediocre film. A decision was clearly made that the three of them wouldn’t be doing too much running around. After all, Neill is 74 years old, Goldblum 69 years old, and Dern 55 years old – perhaps not quite of an age to be pelting down a muddy road being chased by velociraptors. So their action scenes focussed more on upturned cars and stealthy dinosaur chases through caves or up ladders, leaving it to Pratt’s character to ride his motorcycle onto a moving plane while being chased by dinosaurs. It works well and strikes a nice balance between action and a more sedate pace.


However, this decision results in another flaw in the film: the lack of character development for Howard and Pratt’s characters. While their roles see the most action in Jurassic World: Dominion, there are very few chances for them to stop for a breather and have some emotional development. They’re cast as the concerned parents chasing after their stolen daughter. The scenario involving prehistoric locusts (which was an interesting plotline and one sign of the writers thinking outside of the franchise box) was left to Neill, Dern, and Goldblum. It was Neill and Dern who took on the thoughtful, investigative roles, who analysed the science and infiltrated the bad guy’s organisation. They saved the world while Howard and Pratt saved their daughter. One plotline had a steady, discreet pace, the other was an action-packed mad dash.


One relief is that the filmmakers abandoned the idea of trying to create super vicious and intelligent hybrid dinosaurs and instead chose to use real life dinosaurs that we haven’t seen before. The one that reminded me Freddy Kruger in bird-dinosaur form was far more terrifying, to my mind, when it went snuffling after Howard than any of the previous genetically modified dinosaurs had been when they chased characters across roofs. 


Ironic, then, that the human villain in Jurassic World: Dominion was so vanilla as to be uninteresting. As a fan of the original books, I really liked that the movie brought back Lewis Dodgson as the owner of a rival company, but the film really did nothing with the character. Campbell Scott played the role with wonderful understatement and would have made an excellent villain in another movie. But the human villains of Jurassic Park have always been big and bold and greedy. They’re larger than life villains to match the larger than life dinosaurs they’re trying to steal or exploit. Dodgson was just not up to it.


A particular element of Dodgson’s character that really irked me was how the director kept shoehorning in Dennis Nedry’s abandoned shaving foam canister. It was an obvious and crude reference, especially when you consider it would be highly unlikely that Dodgson could recover a canister that we last saw being buried by mud. In addition, absolutely no reason was offered as to why Dodgson would want to keep it around and even pack it in his belongings as if it had sentimental value.


For me, the six Jurassic Park films began and ended with a rite of passage. I saw the original Jurassic Park in 1993 with some older friends, my first trip to the cinema without my parents. For Jurassic World: Dominion, I got to take my daughter with me who hadn’t been old enough to see any of the previous films in the cinema. She actually bounced up and down in her seat at the excitement of seeing dinosaurs on a huge movie screen. 


And that’s the main draw of this film: the dinosaurs. There is nothing that can match the roar of a T-rex through cinema speakers; a TV cannot really do justice to the size of a mosasaurus as it zeroes in on an unsuspecting fishing vessel. It was great to see the old cast back again, and while there were plenty of flaws in this movie, there was good stuff too. All the characters got a nice send off, and after seeing BD Wong in every one of the Jurassic World movies so far, I thought the way his plotline was wrapped up was particularly satisfying.


So while I won’t necessarily be rushing to own a copy of this when it comes out on DVD, I enjoyed the film while I was in the cinema. In fact, I enjoyed it enough to tell my excited daughter that if she wanted to see it a second time, I’d take her back for the novelty value. After all, not many other films deliver a good dose of dinosaurs on the big screen, and it’s unlikely we’ll see any more for a while to come.

Gatlopp (2022)
Written by Jim Mahoney
Directed by Alberto Belli


Review by: Mark Walker
​
Jumanji meets Escape Room. It’s going to be one hell of a game. Four friends reunite for game night to forget the trauma of adult life. With mischief, booze and mayhem on the cards, are they playing the game or is the game playing them? With their lives on the line, the group must face their inner demons by the time the sun rises or be forced to play the game for eternity. Written by and starring Jim Mahoney (Klaus), Gatlopp: Hell of a Game was directed by Alberto Belli and also stars Emmy Raver-Lampman (The Umbrella Academy, Blacklight) and Jon Bass (Baywatch).

Signature Films and Signature Entertainment presents Gatlopp: Hell of a Game on Digital Platforms June 27th

So, I went into Gatlopp with low expectations. I hadn’t heard of it before I got the screener but, when I saw Emmy Raver-Lampman’s name (she’s great in Umbrella Academy) and noticed it was written by Jim Mahoney who also worked on the screenplay for Klaus, my interest was piqued.

(Just as a side note - Klaus may be a Christmas movie but, if you haven’t seen it, check it out!)

Gatlopp follows Paul (Mahoney) as he deals with his pending divorce by temporarily moving in with old friend Cliff (Jon Bass) to get himself together and back on his (single) feet. Cliff is the goofball party-guy of their friend group and he secretly invites Sam (Raver-Lampman) and Troy (Sarunas J. Jackson) over in an attempt to get everyone drunk and forget about their troubles. This is a group of friends who have fallen out of touch and drifted apart over the years; is this a chance to get the old team back together?

As the drinking intensifies, Cliff produces an old boardgame “Gatlopp” that he found stashed in his newly acquired credenza. Skipping the full rule book (because that’s BORING!) they settle down to play, and this is when the shit hits the fan. Like Jumanji, Gatlopp is not a game to be entered into lightly. Freaked out by impossible events they re-read the instructions and discover they will be doomed to play the game for eternity if they do not finish before dawn.

As they play, Gatlopp forces them to face up to the past, their own shortcomings, and their strained relationships as they learn to be less self-centred and shake off the lies and pretence holding them back from being better people.

Gatlopp definitely riffs on Jumanji and the concept of playing a game that you really aren’t in control of. As a comedy-horror, it ups the ante a little in terms of the impact of not playing the game correctly and the stakes are definitely higher but, ultimately, it is the same experience; board pieces moving on their own, the game being in control and real things and people magically manifesting along the way.

At the end of the day, Gatlopp is a simple film, and the characters go on fairly predictable journeys. They laugh together, argue, fight and make up, until they finally end up stronger, wiser, and better friends. And that is fine. Sometimes I like simple.

That does not necessarily mean bad.

And Gatlopp isn’t.

I was pleasantly surprised watching this one. While it isn’t “laugh-out-loud” funny (to me, YMMV of course) it is amusing in places and the main quartet were likeable enough. Yes, as the film progresses, we find out past secrets and cold hard truths, but none of them are truly horrible people, they’ve just lost themselves along the way somewhere, and I did find myself rooting for them.

And that is why Gatlopp works better than you might expect for a film that is, in concept, not particularly original. The four friends work well together, their performances are great and there is some fun dialogue. The “tricks” the game plays on them are inventive and different and, while the ending is predictable, it is satisfying enough and comes with a little teaser to suggest a sequel could work.

And I, for one, would be here for that.

And, at just 80 minutes, it packs a lot into a tight package that will never outstay its welcome.

I had fun watching Gatlopp, and a lot more than I thought I would, so I’m an idiot for pre-judging it. While I didn’t find myself roaring with laughter, I still enjoyed the interplay between the characters and the jeopardy of the game. Gatlopp would make an admiral, light-hearted coda to a movie marathon alongside Jumanji and Game Night.
​
Go on, roll the dice, and take a chance.

I don’t know what the hell I just watched.

But I fucking loved it.


30 years in the making and Phil Tippet has delivered some of the most incredible stop motion animation I have seen in a long time. I mean, the man has form; Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Robocop, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, and Twilight to name but a few, so it is no surprise that this is so impressive. I grew up on stop-motion films and the amazing work of Ray Harryhausen, so I was definitely up for this when I read the description. However, watching movies like Jason and the Argonauts, or Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger did nothing to prepare me for the genius at work in Mad God.

Now, I am not going to pretend to understand everything that I saw in this film. Mad God is a film to be experienced (sorry, the pretention is sneaking in) not necessarily understood; at least not on the first watch through. And, if you are anything like me, once will not be enough; Mad God demands repeated viewings.
The film opens with an image of a tower. Atop the tower, an imposing figure looks down and surveys the hundreds of workers/subjects slowly making their way around and up the tower. Lightning strikes the figure and cloud descends to eventually obscure the whole scene, clearing the image for the film title to slam into view.

Was this the Tower of Babel? Destroyed through God’s wrath? The Mad God of the title? The justification for the destruction of the Tower of Babel certainly suggests the action of a Mad God; but is this an angry God, or a God who has lost their mind?

A quote from Leviticus follows the image of the tower and suggests a wrathful God, taking revenge for anyone not following his doctrines and rule; a God prepared to wreak havoc and destruction on his own creation if displeased with their subjects.

          “Your land shall become a desolation and your cities a ruin.”

In Mad God, everything is desolation, ruin, and despair.

As the film “proper” begins, the “Assassin” descends through several layers (rings of hell?) of post-apocalyptic cityscapes, below ground and down into a twisted labyrinth inhabited by nightmare-fuel creatures and monsters of staggering invention and horror. The Assassin encounters a procession of disturbing scenes that are likely to haunt you for long time to come, past drone-like workers, blindly toiling for a demented, babbling baby overlord, while their lives are clearly expendable and easily wasted.

Desolation. And Despair.

The Assassin carries with him a slowly decaying map and a suitcase that contains a bomb, the purpose of the Assassin’s journey. He has clearly been sent here to do some damage, perhaps to end the suffering and torment of the creatures around him; to release them from the world created by the titular deity?

From here things get a little tricky to discuss. It is difficult to explain the plot, such as there is, of Mad God without discussing everything that happens in the film and, even then, the plot is difficult to describe beyond the suggestion that the Assassin has been tasked with destroying this subterranean hell-hole.

But it is much more layered than that. There are sinister surgeons, other Assassins, animal experiments, scientists, a witch like character who might be the figure from the top of the tower in the opening images and a (final?) man (Alex Cox) overseeing everything and sending assassins into the inferno. Could he be the Mad God?

The plot follows a fairly clear route up to about a third of the way into the film before a significant event for the Assassin changes his fortunes and the plot moves into a more (if possible) dream-like state moving between the Final Man, a new Assassin and the fate of the first assassin.

Confusing, but indescribably compelling.

Mad God is a film that is hard to describe and even harder to explain but, despite what I have said about confusing films in the past, this one doesn’t fall into the same category. This doesn’t feel like a film that is confusing for the sake of it, just to try and prove how clever it is. There is layer upon layer of meaning here. Or maybe there isn’t. And that is the beauty of Mad God. The meaning is what you find in it, like all great art.

Is it a political or environmental allegory? Is it a warning? The film shows a bleak (future?) with some hope, some chance of revival and renewal, but with a stark warning that we are destined to make the same mistakes unless we learn from the past.

Or that is just one possible interpretation and who knows if that is the right one? Well, Phil Tippett probably does. On first watch, I was definitely confused and, a few days later, I still am, but I haven’t stopped thinking about it, piecing together what I saw, and I will definitely watch it again. A physical release would be fantastic.

The word “masterpiece” gets bandied around a fair bit, and it isn’t always well-used. In the case of Mad God, I think it is justified. For me. The film is going to find fans and haters alike. It is unusual, disturbing, inspirational, violent, and confusing – it is going to polarise. But, if you are a fan of stop-motion and fancy being weirded out and fascinated at the same time, then I think you will enjoy Mad Dog – even if you just stop and look at the model work and sets from time to time. So much work has gone into this film, it is mind-blowing (sorry, more hyperbole). There is so much detail here and little treats in the background. On my first viewing I spotted a Robbie the Robot, what looked like Kali from the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and a cyclops similar to the one Sinbad encountered on his 7th Voyage. I am sure there are more, and Mad God is a visual treat that is equally inventive, nostalgic, and disturbing. Even if you don’t understand what is going on, just soak up the visuals and enjoy the ride.

Mad God feels like the result of a collaboration between the creators of the “Little Nightmares” video game and “2001: A Space Odyssey” after a drug-fuelled trip through Dante’s Inferno – with maybe even a nod to Stephen King’s Dark Tower.
​
I am the first to admit I have gushed a little here, but I make no apologies for it; Mad God deserves all the gushing, but don’t come for me if you don’t like it – this is going to be marmite!

Ghosts of the Ozarks (2021)
Written by Jordan Wayne Long, Tara Perry and Sean Anthony Davis
Directed by Matt Glass and Jordan Wayne Long

Review by: Mark Walker

 In post-civil war Arkansas, a young doctor is mysteriously summoned to a remote town in the Ozarks, only to discover the utopian paradise he expected is filled with secrets and surrounded by a menacing, supernatural presence. Starring Tim Blake Nelson and David Arquette, Ghosts of the Ozarks is a thrilling new take on the southern ghost story.
​
Signature Entertainment present Ghosts of the Ozarks on Digital Platforms 23rd May

At the invite of his brother, James McCune (Thomas Hobson) travels to the small town of Norfolk in the Ozark Mountains. The community needs a new doctor, and Matthew (Phil Morris) believes his brother will fit the bill perfectly. On his journey, James is attacked by a stranger looking for something that be believes James has, but the stranger is “taken” by a mysterious red mist that appears out of nowhere. James makes a run for it and arrives in town, flustered and panicked, but suddenly safe. Following his harrowing experiences in the Civil War, James is initially stunned by the apparent harmony of the community. He sees none of the issues and prejudices he has experienced outside the safety of the town walls. With their very own source of natural gas, the town is thriving under the leadership of his brother Matthew.

But it becomes apparent that there is another reason for the walls.; a sinister presence, known as “the Ghosts” by the townsfolk. These spirits are revered and feared by the people of the town and they stalk the woods outside the walls; the red mist that James encountered.

As James settles into his new life, things appear to idyllic, until he meets Annie and Will, two hunters who supply the town with food, but who also chose to live outside the protection of the walls. It is through Annie that he learns how things might not be quite as perfect as they seem. With some members of the town acting suspiciously and secretively, and with mysterious deaths, James slowly uncovers the truth about the town and it’s Ghosts.

Ghosts of the Ozarks is a quality production. The direction and visuals are good and the cast and acting is solid; which is what you would expect with a cast that includes Tim Blake Nelson, David Arquette, Angela Bettis, Tara Perry and Joseph Rudd who all put in great performances.

It isn’t a fast-paced film and Ozarks takes its time to set up the characters and the town, slowly revealing its history, developing a feeling of unease and mystery around what is going on. Norfolk does not give up its secrets to James easily, and it isn’t always clear who can be trusted.

It's a great set-up and builds atmosphere slowly but it does feel a little familiar from the start. The concept of an outsider arriving in a mysterious community is not entirely new; but the acting, direction and writing drew me in, and I was invested in James’ character very quickly. However, for me, the major problem with the film was the “reveal” in the final act. Once you find out what is going on, you realise just how close it sails to some other films (and one in particular that I won’t name for spoiler reasons) that have used a similar plot device in the past. Sadly, this just takes the wind out of Ghost’s sails because it isn’t quite the surprise the film probably thinks it is. It is also all over very quickly after the reveal, so the implications and impact on the people of Norfolk is glossed over, lessening the impact. Having said that, I am a big fan of the film that Ghosts pays close tribute to, so still enjoyed it, it just loses a star or two because of that similarity.

This doesn’t make Ozarks a bad film, it just reduced the impact of the reveal for me. Your mileage may vary if you haven’t seen the other film, but I feel it may detract from what is, otherwise, a well-made production with great acting and direction. The central performances are good, and you even get a musical number from Tim Blake Nelson and Angela Bettis which felt a little odd when it kicked in but had me humming it for the next few days!
​
Overall, I enjoyed Ozarks, I just didn’t find it original enough to be great. If you like the sound of the premise and the cast list, then it is definitely worth a look, just be prepared to be underwhelmed by the final act that probably won’t take you anywhere you haven’t been before.

​Film Review: Shin Godzilla (2016)
The Japanese government struggle against a giant monster and political bureaucracy.
Dir. Hideaki Anno, Shinji Higuchi; Japan; 120min
Rating: 10/10

Shin Godzilla is a 2016 sci-fi/horror film from directors Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi, placing itself as the 31st instalment in the historic Godzilla franchise. Grossing $78m worldwide on only a $15m budget and winning 7 awards in the 2017 Japan Academy Prize including Picture Of The Year, it was a massive commercial and critical success.

Following their creation of the sci-fi/psychological anime classic Neon Genesis Evangelion, Anno and Higuchi are on top form once more. The film carefully ties together the horror elements of Godzilla’s attack on Japan with meaningful political commentary on the Japanese government’s response to disasters, creating a film that can be appreciated on a multitude of layers.

This iteration of Godzilla diverts from recent presentations of Godzilla as a hero, saving Japan from other, more blatantly evil and destructive monsters. The Godzilla of Shin is instead a horrific, mutated abomination with no interest in helping humanity, or even interacting with it; they are simply in the way. Godzilla gradually evolves from a single tail erupting from Tokyo Bay to a bizarre amphibian with eyes like that of a dead fish, and finally to a more traditional Godzilla-esque gargantuan behemoth. Even in this more ‘expected’ form, Shin brings back the horror elements of the earliest films in the series in its unsettling design, describable only as a monster rather than a natural creature. Just as with the Godzilla of 1954, it’s covered in tumours and keloid scars, the unique scarring originating from radiation poisoning, which was included to reinforce Godzilla’s representation of the Hiroshima bombing and the effects of nuclear war. Blood continually pours from its gills when it first surfaces on land; its eyes remain beady and vacant, as if unsure of its own existence, and its jaw horrifyingly unhinges and even splits in half when unleashing its destructive atomic breath. Godzilla is presented as a confused creature in agony.

Just as with the original film’s political commentary on the America’s irresponsible use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima, and Godzilla itself directly paralleling the nuclear fallout, Shin Godzilla has a new target in its subtext: the Japanese government’s response to the tragic 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster following it. Several of the shots during Godzilla’s first landfall very deliberately mirror images of the tsunami hitting Tohoku, and his rampage leaves Tokyo almost uninhabitable due to radioactive fallout left in his wake. Anno ensures audiences cannot miss the implications and subtext of these scenes: Godzilla is a walking nuclear disaster.

The story is also framed not through the eyes of a heroic citizen, as with several other films in the series, but instead the government itself. This leads to scenes and characters’ decisions that intentionally present the government as uncertain and sometimes ineffectual despite their best efforts, clearly reflecting Anno’s view of the slow response to the 2011 disasters, which lead to avoidable death and destruction. The cast’s impressive and complex performances add greatly to this aspect of the film, never falling into naive archetypes of governmental figures. While the politicians could have been presented as misguided fools Anno avoids this cliché and creates characters with depth, by ensuring they are always acting in the best interest of the citizens and making some intelligent decisions, such as prioritising a full evacuation of Tokyo before even attempting to damage Godzilla; Anno instead takes aim at the failure and infuriating complications of bureaucracy. An example of this satire is the repeated implementation of scenes displaying the politicians moving to a different cabinet meeting room midway through an emergency briefing, purely due to traditional bureaucracy rules decreeing it. My favourite highlight of this is one of the best uses of humour in the film; Prime Minister Okochi is shown delivering a press conference reassuring citizens that Godzilla will not make landfall – a scene which immediately cuts to chaotic handheld camera footage of Godzilla making landfall. While you might worry this focus on accurate bureaucracy could negatively affect the film’s pacing, the constant threat and evolutions of Godzilla maintains intense urgency over the film’s two-hour runtime, cleverly reflecting the character’s panic due to their unpreparedness for this disaster.

Effective as the political satire is, this element never gets in the way of the film’s breathtaking action and horror elements. Shin contains by far the most haunting sequences of any film in the franchise, and arguably of the entire kaiju genre, containing absolutely stunning cinematography and direction. Godzilla is consistently presented as a literal god, very often shot from a grounded perspective to highlight its incomprehensible size and stature. The CGI used to create it is flawless, never damaging your suspension of disbelief with poor effects or low-quality models. Each shot of this abomination reinforces its horrific and godlike nature, culminating in the truly disturbing climactic scene of Godzilla decimating Tokyo and transforming it into a burning hellscape. This horrifyingly beautiful sequence not only demonstrates its ridiculous destructive power, but also acts as an unexpected character moment for Godzilla due to its soundtrack. Returning to collaborate with Anno after his work on Neon Genesis Evangelion, Shiro Sagisu’s Who Will Know is a gorgeous orchestral piece befitting of the magnificent devastation onscreen and, in a rare choice for a kaiju film, containing lyrics:

This melancholy operatic piece strengthens Godzilla’s presentation as a tortured being in an unusually emotional exploration of its tragic character, wonderfully contrasting the destruction it underscores. Other tracks from Sagisu also perfectly reinforce the wildly varying tones of the scenes they appear in. The warm and jazzy Early Morning From Tokyo adds rare feelings of relaxation to the calmer moments of the film, while EM20 (a rearrangement of the track Decisive Battle from Evangelion, a treat for fans of Anno’s work) adds powerful intensity to frantic cabinet meetings with its marching drums and hopeful melodies. Anno also includes classic themes by the late, great composer Akira Ifukube, strengthening Godzilla’s horrifying prescence with several renditions of the beast’s unforgettable title theme from across the franchise’s history, in addition to preserving iconic roars from Godzilla’s past. Without Sagisu’s stunning pieces and Ifukube’s legacy, Shin simply wouldn’t be the same.
​
Shin Godzilla is a masterpiece. Anno and Higuchi’s creative visions shine through to create what is easily the most unique, and beautiful, Godzilla film to date. Shin isn’t only an incredible Godzilla film; it’s just an incredible film.
​

Name: Harry Schofield
Gender: Non-binary
Course: 2nd year of study of BA (Hons) in Creative and Professional Writing at University of Derby
Writing interests: poetry, short fiction and review/commentary

Ginger Nuts of Horror is honoured to once again be asked to participate in Derby University's Creative and Professional Writing & Film and Television Studies honours degree course.  

Today we welcome Charlotte Sims with their review of  Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) directed by  David Blue Garcia

MINOR SPOILERS

There’s a reason why this story has been remade and rebooted time and time again due to the upstanding ranking of the 1974 original being the best in the franchise. Leatherface returns for the 9th instalment of the Texas Chainsaw franchise, once again terrorising a group of teenagers for disrupting his peace he’s managed to maintain for 50 years after the events of the 1974 film in a quaint ghost town in “Texas” – but was actually filmed in Bulgaria.

Instead of living up to the original where it gained reputation for being one of the best and most influential horror films of its time, the 2022 film is a soft reboot that focuses more on gore visuals, exposition that doesn’t connect to the original story, and an overbearing lack of logic that makes this film mind-numbingly frustrating to watch.


First of all, the story feels unimaginative. Netflix’s TX Chainsaw feels notably similar to the approach of the 2018’s Halloween sequel where Laurie, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, returns to finally kill her pursuer. Even though it’s a typical trope of a victim returning to exact revenge, it’s understandable why they used the story because of how Halloween received high ratings of 79% on Rotten Tomatoes, and from its audiences stating it lived up to the 1978 original. Whilst they created a similar plot and had potential, it still managed to fail.

The story tries to connect itself to the original movie even though it diverts from original lore. In the 1974 film, Leatherface lives with his father and brothers in an isolated farmhouse with the mystery surrounding the mother. Yet in this movie, he has apparently lived in an orphanage since he was a child with his mother, who the original Leatherface never knew.

The remake made Leatherface 2-dimensional like other slasher villains such as Michael Myers, who has always been the essence of evil, unlike Leatherface who seemed to have been manipulated by his horrific family making him more human. This interesting backstory of his character that made him different to other slasher movies and had developed over the years had now been thrown through the window to just be a carbon-copy of Myers only with a chainsaw.

The script sounded unrehearsed as the dialogue was flat and unemotional - even though this could be the actor’s performance, the reactions from characters when they saw someone slumped over after being brutally murdered weren’t at all realistic. It also seemed as though the scriptwriters had no idea how teenagers talk to each other because of the overuse of cringey and cliché “teenager language” – such as using “lit”, “weirdo”, “sis” and a personal hatred of mine: “Newsflash”.

The characters retain the ‘collateral damage’ trope role of slasher movies, which is fine to watch but for me it felt like they were being purposefully dumb as though their intentions were to die as soon as possible. Communication between characters is practically non-existent with the famous line of “just trust me” before things go terribly wrong, it’s as though the writers want minimal character development.


However, the cinematography and the use of sound were really pleasing and were the enjoyable part of my experience. The film has beautiful use of colours and interesting camera shots/angles that portray the new-Leatherface in a more terrifying light. The filmmaker revealed that the production took an “old school” approach to filming by using vintage lenses and practical effects for the gore, which seemingly enhanced the visual style of the film by making the atmosphere feel more Texan.

My favourite scene is the moment we see Leatherface through the wing-mirror of the Sheriff van holding up the face he carved off up into the sky – the intense musical sting brings the tension that had been building to a climax as the infamous killer gains a new mask of human skin.

The film’s use of musical stings and sound effects increased the suspense and tension in most scenes and made me feel more immersed in the action, rather than relying on loud jump-scare effects and heavy music that make me feel like the film tries too hard.

I also love the subtle references and humorous moments dotted within the film. A reference to the T-Rex chase scene from Jurassic Park (1993) where on the mirror of the Jeep it says: “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear” can be seen on the Sheriff’s van mirror. There are also numerous references to the 1974 original, such as the end-credit scene where we see Leatherface walking up to the now-decrepit farmhouse, and the unsettlingly poetic, creepy chainsaw dance.


Within five days after its release on Netflix, it stood at 1st  place in their Top 10 list in the US. But overall, viewers were less than impressed and the film received a generally negative review from critics, as it holds a rating of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes. The Atlantic’s David Sims describes the film as “unnecessary and anonymous, leaning on crass visual shocks while failing to match the unsparing brutality of its lodestar.”

For me the film was a let-down. While I was shocked by the bus bloodbath scene and enjoyed the cinematography masterpieces surrounding the Sheriff’s van scene, I felt like I questioned a lot of the logic in the movie which repeatedly took me out of the immersion. I like the immortality of killers in slasher movies, but not when it starts to become ridiculous – especially with how long it took for side-characters to die after being held up in the air by the chainsaw.

It’s a shame that the film had so much potential to be on a par with the original, if only they had followed the original lore and atmosphere instead of diverting in a new direction, this film wouldn’t have turned out to be a pointless remake that doesn’t connect with the other films apart from use of the words Texas, chainsaw and massacre.

The director has expressed interest in helping with another sequel, but with generally unfavourable reviews from Metacritic, it may be best to leave it to someone else.
​
Overall, I give the film a 4/10. The great use of sound and music that went against typical horror/slasher tropes of being super loud, and chilling cinematography feel like a waste of time if it’s just going to be brought down by the poor writing and execution.

Review by ​Charlotte Simms

People see Paul Dood (wonderfully played by Tom Meeten) as a bit of a loser. He works in a charity shop with other misfits and lives at home with his elderly mum (June Watson). But his heart is in the right place, and he loves his mum.


And she loves him.

So much so that she supports his dreams to win the big talent contest Paul is obsessed with. Paul is so invested in the talent show that he posts videos and live streams charting his journey to stardom on the social media site “Trend Ladder” a popularity contest where everyone is vying for the top rung. However, when Paul realises he has mixed up his dates, he has just a few hours to get to the audition or his dreams may end up in tatters.

With his mum in a wheelchair, Paul embarks on a hero’s journey that is thwarted at every turn by officious railway staff, frustrated shop-owners, dodgy church-folk and celebrity judge, Jack Tapp (Kevin Bishop) who makes Simon Cowell look like Charlie Brown.

Paul’s dream ends in disaster, and he finally cracks a few days later as he sets out on a poorly planned rampage of revenge against all those he holds responsible for his audition failure, live-streaming his deadly lunch break all the way.

Paul Dood’ Deadly Lunchbreak is a mildly gory, light-hearted look at one man’s limits; it’s Falling Down in the English suburbs mixed with interpretive dance. It is, on the whole, a silly film, played for fun, but with an underlying warmth and love for its lead character. Regardless of whatever you think about Paul’s actions on his deadly lunchbreak, you are on his side all the way as he fights to overcome the arseholes in life who won’t let people just be who they are.

As Paul livestreams his lunchbreak, his popularity on TrendLadder soars, propelling him into the stardom he wanted from his audition, but for hugely different reasons. As the reality of his spree becomes evident, he is elevated to local hero, before a final standoff where…. Well, you will have to watch to find out, I don’t want to spoil anything!

Ultimately, Paul Dood’s deadly lunch break shows him that he doesn’t need to seek adoration from the faceless people on social media, that the important people to him have always been right there in front of him, it just takes a few deaths to figure that out.

I loved this film and can’t recommend it highly enough. It not high art (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) but is an hour and a half of pure fun and joy with a great cast of characters played by some of our greatest domestic talent. Paul Dood mixes with the likes of Katherine Parkinson, Kris Marshall, Johnny Vegas, Mandeep Dhillon, Craig Parkinson, Pippa Haywood, Alice Lowe and Steve Oram. And there are some great minor characters mixed in as well; keep an eye out for the women who stumble across Paul in the local skate park!

Visually, the film looks great. It is mostly intimately shot, with a lot of interiors so you don’t get sweeping vistas and widescreen photography, but you don’t need it. You need to be intimate with Paul to understand him and empathise with his journey. The way the film is shot and written does that perfectly.

Not only is it very funny in places, but it also loves its lead. It would be easy to criticise Paul Dood for scoring laughs at the expense of Paul and his life. But it doesn’t. The main “digs” at Paul come from the arsehole characters around him who see him as a joke, but the film is never directly cruel to Paul. It is an interesting take on the impact of Talent Shows and the dubious value of entertainment that encourages you to laugh at “losers.” It is everyone other than Paul that is the problem here. Paul is harmless, loving and caring and many of those around him don’t deserve him.

The style and feel of the film (and some of the cast) reminded me a lot of Sightseers so, if you had a good time with that couple (who also show up here) then I think you are going to enjoy spending a lunch break with Paul Dood. This is low-budget filmmaking at its best. Paul Dood won’t trouble the Oscars, but it was never meant to and although It’s a bit rough around the edges, much like its lead, that just adds to its charm.
​
Unlike Jack Tapp, why not give Paul Dood a chance?

An anxious shut-in moves into a haunted apartment, hiring a stranger to perform an exorcism which quickly takes a horrific turn. (IMDB)


Warning – there are some minor spoilers in this review


Ken Barber (Geno Walker) is trying to start afresh. He’s suffered a breakdown, a split from his wife and it sounds like alcohol was a contributing factor. His fresh start means moving into a new apartment as he tries to build a life for himself away from the issues that brought him down. Ken also suffers with anxiety and is a shut-in, rarely (if ever) leaving his apartment, locked into a daily routine where every day is planned out and meticulous. He communicates largely via web-chats with his ex-wife Kelsey (Kate Arrington) and his best mate Terry (Felonious Munk) and fills his spare time through taxidermy, as well as recording a number of different video-blogs as he tries to grow a following on social media.

The latter isn’t going so well, until Terry notices a bird fall off a shelf behind Ken in a very unusual way, leading to the suggestion that Ken’s apartment might be haunted, and he starts to gain an online following for his videos. As more strange things start to happen, Ken tries to capture the ghost using a spirit jar he designed based on passages from a book by famous medium/spiritualist Colin Albertson (Lawrence Grimm) and some stuff he found on the internet. Now, regardless of how much of a sceptic you may be, using random symbols you found on the internet is never going to go well for you! The attempt to trap the spirit results in a few surprises and more weird things happening in Ken’s apartment.

Ken’s videos catch the attention of spooky streamer Dark Corners (Daniel Kyri) who arranges a live stream of a second attempt to capture the spirit using a spirit jar personally made by Lawrence Grimm. Ken’s ex wife and her new partner Isaac (Michael Shannon clearly having a ball) along with Terry, Ken, Lawrence, Dark Corners and fellow streamer Lyden Knight (Theo Germaine) all join the livestream as they attempt to trap the spirit in Lawrence’s spirit jar.

And that is when thing get REALLY messy.

Night’s End is a film of two halves.

The first part of the film concentrates on Ken’s fresh start and his attempts to order his life with routine. Ken is someone who counts down from 10 when he is stressed to keep himself calm, or when he is preparing for sleep. He doesn’t leave his flat and his kitchen cupboards are lacking in content, but extremely well ordered and tidy. His routine is what keeps him sane so, when the weird stuff starts to happen, we watch Ken slowly unravel, unsure if what he is experiencing is real or his imagination. After the bird falls from the shelf, we have a slow build up of noises, things moving and misty apparitions. As Ken learns more about the history behind his apartment the bumps in the night take on a more sinister turn and he goes back to drinking, his routine screwed. For someone who had a problem with drinking and who has previously had a breakdown, the weird shit in the apartment will make you question your sanity. His family and friends see him drinking again and they begin to question his reliability and the truth in what he is telling them, pushing Ken further to the brink.

I enjoyed this part of the film. I liked the way it built up slowly; the more psychological elements of the story and how it affected Ken, taking away his control and grip on reality. It reminded me of Host (for obvious reasons) and the way that builds up the terror by not really knowing what is going on and whether things are real.

However, once the live stream kicks in for the final act, the film, for me, goes in an almost completely different direction which didn’t quite work. It was almost too much of a shift and took me into Prince of Darkness territory. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, it’s a classic movie and it feels like Night’s End took some inspiration from it, right down to the soundtrack in places. But the tone in that film is fairly constant throughout. Part of the problem was Lawrence’s character which was comedic, but in a way that was out of kilter with the rest of the film which had not been played for laughs. I guess it is a tone thing, the shift just didn’t quite feel natural from the set-up.

Perhaps if I had read the tagline on the poster earlier, that might have given me a different expectation, but I went in blind and just felt the shift into the third act was a little jarring. It’s tricky to criticise a film for something like this because it is a very personal thing, and it may well not be an issue for anyone else. Both parts work well, are shot and acted well, and I had no major issue with them other than the way I didn’t feel they gelled together.

I am not saying that this is a bad film at all, let’s make that clear. For me it is a 3/5-star film which could have reached for 4 stars if it wasn’t for that switch-up. Now, some people will love the change and the way things pan out, especially if they are not expecting it. I think Jennifer Reeder does a great job with the movie and the cast are great, it’s just that one thing that niggled me. Anyway, there are no ratings on IMDB yet, so it will be interesting to see how other reviewers see it. I suspect I will be in the minority!

Remember, art is subjective!
​
Night’s End is due for release on 31st March on Shudder and I would definitely recommend you checking it out, just be ready for a shift in tone that will either mildly annoy you or delight you