Cursed (2005)

Some say that Wes Craven’s come a long way since his breakthrough film A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984. However, after seeing Cursed, it’s clear Craven still has far to go before guaranteeing his position in the horror pantheon.

Cursed seems like an attempt by director Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson to re-create the success of their Scream formula, this time with a werewolf theme. Unfortunately, this film seems neither as fresh nor as revolutionary as the earlier effort. The characters and situations are stereotypical and tired; do we really need to see another bullied teenager sequence? Also, as the characters are eager to point out, werewolf films have a long history in the horror genre. Cursed doesn’t really bring anything new, simply re-working a familiar slasher/mystery framework into a werewolf ‘thriller.’

The werewolf itself is mostly unimpressive and underused, low-rent CGI replacing more expensive physical effects. Apparently the film was shot twice, with half the cast replaced due to scheduling problems; maybe if they didn’t need to hire twice as many actors Craven could’ve afforded a better werewolf (and script).

What had the potential to become the beginning of a new and interesting franchise falls flat on almost every level.

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Almost forty years after his original genre-defining zombie film was released, George Romero returns for a fifth film in the genre he helped to pioneer. After so many subsequent films have adapted and re-defined the zombie genre, Diary of the Dead goes back to the beginning, with a re-imagining of the original cataclysmic outbreak, retconned to modern day. The resulting film is a mix of old and new, traditional lumbering zombies amongst a Youtube world, filmed in handheld POV. While Romero has delivered an interesting film (for a number of reasons), Diary of the Dead is ultimately disappointing and never quite manages to deliver on its potential.

One of the film’s strengths (and ironically, weaknesses) is the POV gimmick. Shooting from the camera’s point of view is an excellent technique for horror films, creating an extremely tense atmosphere that puts the viewer right in the events on screen. There are some genuinely frightening sequences in the film, aided immensely by the POV shooting. However, Romero seems too restricted by the POV gimmick. The film’s narrative doesn’t flow as naturally as it does in other films that use similar techniques (Cloverfield, for instance). The whole idea of a film-within-a-film feels forced as well, especially with the use of incidental music (a technique used to create tension, according to the editor of the film-within-a-film).

Diary of the Dead also lacks a genuine documentary feel, something present in The Blair Witch Project, clearly one of Romero’s inspirations for this film. The acting and characters seem especially over-the-top and borderline melodramatic. Strangely enough, the camera work also seems a bit too professional and high quality for student filmmakers. The composition is generally too staged to be believable (although there is a subtext in the film relating to authenticity and whether or not a documentary filmmaker can be objective and 100% truthful).

There are many interesting elements to Diary of the Dead but I feel Romero doesn’t quite meet the standards set by his previous zombie films. The film’s rhetoric about media propaganda risks heavy-handedness and the pseudo-documentary techniques employed do more harm than good. While still an interesting modern revision of Night of the Living Dead, Diary of the Dead fails to deliver on its ambition.

Dog Soldiers (2002)

I was familiar with Dog Soldiers long before I watched it, seeing it on the shelf at my local video store and thinking that it was just another straight-to-video D-grade horror film, directed by ‘nobody’ Neil Marshall. Years later, I watched The Descent (Marshall’s next film), a tense, frightening, smart horror film and decided to give Dog Soldiers a chance, hoping that it would be half as good as Marshall’s later film. Thankfully, I wasn’t let down: though not as polished as The Descent, Dog Soldiers is incredibly kinetic and suspenseful, and easily one of the best werewolf films of the last ten years.

To begin with, the action sequences are tense and exciting, full of realistic weapon use and quick editing. In fact, every aspect of this film is built on realism (ironically enough, in a film about werewolves in the Highlands of Scotland). This is one of Marshall’s strengths as a director, to be able to make an unbelievable or supernatural situation credible and real.

The actors help to strengthen this believability, with a solid cast of (relative) unknowns. Though Sean Pertwee does go slightly over the top in some scenes (purportedly because he was actually drunk for those scenes), he anchors the cast in a good performance as a tough Army sergeant.

Dog Soldiers isn’t without flaws, however. The editing is a tad patchy at times, with some scene transitions not making much sense. As well, the film is generally too dark, especially in the forest sequences, though this is perhaps due to the low budget of the film. As well, some of the characters get lost in the shuffle, only their names and regional accents differentiating them.

Director Marshall has a long career ahead of him, with his excellent grasp of horror and strong sense of narrative. Dog Soldiers, a film that risked getting lost in the video store, manages to shock and entertain, delivering a memorable experience.

House of Wax (2005)

What can I say about a film that was marketed around seeing Paris Hilton killed? Dark Castle Entertainment have a very spotty track record; they’ve made some slightly entertaining films and they’ve made some rubbish films. House of Wax is a slightly entertaining rubbish film.

First of all, the characters seem to possess almost zero logic. Granted, most horror films operate with a reduced level of logic, but the characters in this film seem to be borderline retarded. There’s no continuity of behaviour, either. Characters act totally differently in varying scenes.

One element that separates this film from most of the other Hollywood horror fare is the level of violence. House of Wax doesn’t hesitate in mutilating its main characters, something which doesn’t usually happen in typical mainstream horror. This helps give the film a little more edge, though everything else is strictly by the numbers. Perhaps if the writers and director had taken more chances, the film wouldn’t be so formulaic.

While I’ve certainly seen worse films from Dark Castle (fear dot com and Gothika, for instance), this films does little to differentiate itself from recent horror films and is therefore instantly forgettable.