Review Category: Movie

Creepy, the latest thriller from director Kiyoshi Kurosawa (Pulse, Cure) might not flaunt the kind of hardcore scare factor of Kurosawa’s well-known works, but it’s a well-crafted tension trip nonetheless.

Takakura (Hidetoshi Nishijima) is a retired detective who now teaches criminal psychology at university. After he and his wife Yasuko (Yuko Takeuchi) move to a new neighbourhood he becomes embroiled in a missing persons case from 6 years prior, whilst his wife tries her best to fit in with her new antisocial neighbours, in particular the creepy Mr. Nishimo (Teruyuki Kagawa).

Kurosawa has a lot on his mind, so much so that Creepy seems paranoid to its core – criminal minds, neighbours, suburbs, loved ones, the nuclear family, the home. So many parts of familiar family life are skewed and stretched, their relative familiarity turned into something unsettling. Kurosawa doesn’t quite go down the ultra-nihilistic route of Se7en, but if we keep the Fincher comparison, this is more of a Zodiac type of film. Creepy follows strands of mystery across many years and shows the real-life consequences for those who happen to get too close.

The key strengths of Creepy lie in its superb cast and carefully spaced revelations. Kagawa is incredible, carrying much of the film’s discourse on his shoulders through studied and well-timed ticks and expressions, almost toying with our desire to hate him. Takeuchi is similarly studied, saving all her soul-crushing misery for the final frames of the film which arguably unsettle more than most of the film. The music is pretty great too; one second unsettlingly loud and invasive, the next, oddly melodramatic. It works perfectly when you consider that this is something of a bastardized fusion of Sono’s Cold Fish and TV Soap Neighbours. And though this is indeed a subtle thriller, it has the power to turn void-black at the drop of a vacuum-packed corpse.

For people who take their thrillers on the darker, meaner side, Kurosawa’s Creepy will not be enough to stimulate those nihilistic desires. But that’s not to say that this is an easy-ride, Creepy’s conversational presentation of horrific events actually works uncomfortably well; blending the public and private, the normal and abnormal, until Kurosawa’s anxieties become crystal clear. This is a scathing review of contemporary city-life, a dreadful look at the interchangeability of nuclear families, the damaging effects of the suburban neighbourhoods, and the ultimate dangers of trying to understand the criminal mind.

Creepy is never more unsettling than when Kagawa and Takeuchi share the screen, never eerier than when it reminds us how little we know about our neighbours. The eventual twist is frustratingly easy to spot, but enjoyable to watch unfurl since the film seems more focused on how the engine works as opposed to where it goes. A surprisingly sedate, but haunting film.

CREEPY / CERT: 15 / DIRECTOR: KIYOSHI KUROSAWA / SCREENPLAY: CHIHIRO IKEDA, KIYOSHI KUROSAWA / STARRING: HIDETOSHI NISHIJIMA, YUKO TAKEUCHI, TEREYUKI KAGAWA / RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 25TH

Expected Rating: 6 out of 10

Actual Rating:
 

It’s a testament to Robert Zemeckis that it’s still exciting to hear his name attached as director to any upcoming film. Even after the less than enthralling likes of The Polar Express and Beowulf, Zemeckis’ career is still one filled with some of the greatest films of all time. And even Zemeckis’ new film isn’t up there with the Back to the Future trilogy or Forrest Gump, he’ll probably be pushing the technology of cinema in new and exciting ways somehow.

Well, not always. Allied is his first film since The Walk in which he majestically recreated the Twin Towers of New York City. In Allied, Zemeckis has taken on the slightly less challenging task of bringing 1940s Casablanca and then 1940s London back to life, but this is a story that doesn’t seem to require Zemeckis to really push the technological envelope in the brilliant ways he has in the past (like Roger Rabbit’s interaction with the real world and Flight’s spectacular plane crash).

Allied stars Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard as spies who first meet in French Morocco in 1942 when they are thrown together and must pretend to be husband and wife in order to assassinate a high-ranking Nazi. No prizes for guessing that the pair falls in love during their tense time plotting away in Casablanca. But although this takes up half of the film, the plot really only finally kicks into gear in the second half when it is revealed that the British believe that Cotillard may be a double-dealing, dirty-rotten Nazi spy.

If you feel it’s a bit of a slog getting through the first half as the inevitable romance seems to take an age to blossom, then stick with Allied for a slightly more gripping final hour as Pitt’s love for his new wife is tested. The Casablanca-set scenes are not wholly convincing, neither in their production design nor their lack of chemistry between the two stars. A sandstorm-set sex scene in a car is cleverly shot but fails to get pulses racing in the way that might be expected from seeing two beautiful stars getting their rocks off together. Maybe it’s the thought of all that sand getting in the way… ouch.

But it’s the structure that is the real problem in Allied. It builds to the assassination as if this is a climax, but then almost completely changes in tone and pace when the spies marry, have a child and start a quiet life in England. The question of ‘is she a Nazi spy or isn’t she?’ is fascinating but introduced far too late in proceedings. Pitt and Cotillard are coasting through the material, meaning that it lacks the emotional punch that the finale so desperately wants to evoke. And while Zemeckis has some fun creating the odd action scene, these are ill-fitted with much of the rest of the story.

Allied wants to be a classic tale of war, deception and doomed love, but despite the calibre of all involved, it’s simply a fitfully entertaining but oddly-plotted affair.

ALLIED / CERT: 15 / DIRECTOR: ROBERT ZEMECKIS / SCREENPLAY: STEVEN KNIGHT / STARRING: BRAD PITT, MARION COTILLARD , VINCENT EBRAHIM, XAVIER DE GUILLEBON / RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 25TH

Expected Rating: 6 out of 10
Actual Rating:  
 

Harry Potter has come a long way since The Philosopher’s Stone spilled from the mind of then-aspiring author J.K Rowling, in The Elephant House café in Edinburgh. Rowling’s success with her literary creation has been multiplied by the following film adaptations, starting with 2001’s Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone and ending with 2011’s Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Since this point, Potter has found success on the stage and in a variety of formats, so naturally it would be myopic to suggest that this world would never return to the big screen. Which brings us neatly onto Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, a spin-off-come-prequel to the Potter franchise inspired by Rowling’s 2001 book that she wrote under pseudonym Newt Scamander – who became a figure in the lore of this realm of wizardry. The book essentially looked at the various magic creatures and events surrounding the Harry Potter universe and, considering that this feature is the first of five films in a new pre-Potter film series, hopes are riding high on this being a big success.

Set back in 1926, this film sees magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrive in New York, with a briefcase full of fantastical and magical creatures. No sooner than he arrives, is his own business delayed, as he bumps into a No-Maj (which is basically the American term for muggle (non-magic person) called Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and some of his magical creatures escape. This gains the unwanted attention of Porpentina “Tina” Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a worker at the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA). But more is going on in New York than a couple of escaped beasties, as a dark magic is lurking, threatening to upset the order of mankind and wizardkind alike.

Much like Duncan Jones’ Warcraft: The Beginning earlier this year, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is a film that fans of this literary/film phenomenon will absolutely love. Rowling, in her screenwriting debut, does occasionally bamboozle you with jargon (some of which is delivered so rapidly you find yourself asking “what was that they just said?”) and the structure of this big screen tale does over-excitedly jump around untidily, with certain sub-plots being less expanded than others. However, one constant in this feature is the goodwill (even in the face some truly dark moments) and Rowling’s screenplay is happily imaginative, idealogical and thoroughly entertaining. Yes there is a lot of world building but it is a world you are happy to take the time to see grow and the references to Potter are pretty few in number, barring the odd name drop, meaning that this is an accessible step into Rowling’s enchanting creation.

Despite falling into the common prequel trend of filling the film to the brim with CGI (over practical) effects, and despite some bombastic moments in the latter half, this is an engaging and exciting start to this new series, which comes out swinging far better than the likes of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. This is largely down to the feeling that Rowling and (established Potter director) David Yates know exactly where they are going with this, as tantalisingly hinted at with the climatic reveal of the series’ big baddie, which we won’t discuss any further to avoid spoilers. Not to mention the fact that the creatures themselves really are creative, character-instilled, and fantastic innovations that suggest there is plenty of wonders left for fans and newcomers alike to experience in this world. Then there is the political recoil of the narrative which is a timely caution on the dangers of segregation, the oppressive nature of certain propaganda, man’s destruction of wildlife and how a climate of fear – in this case spurred on by the devious deeds of one dangerous wizard with a lot of power – can lead to panic and thus, destruction.

However, as well as the politics and the fabulous creatures on display, a strong aspect of the film is also its characters, who on the most part are very charming. Redmayne is almost child-like as Scamander, whose love of the natural world and uneasiness around people sees him as a reclusive but compelling figure. The character brings with him a level of British eccentricity and – despite some whispered lines of dialogue being slightly unclear – Redmayne brings an innocence and appeal to the central figure, who strikes up a chemistry with the great supporting players. Katherine Waterston is brilliant and wholly believable as Tina and her character really develops over the course of the film, coming to see past the fear of her magical realm and see the bigger picture. While Dan Fogler, as hard working New Yorker Jacob (who dreams of having his own bakery) is an absolute scene stealer at times and genuinely funny. There is also some foreboding support from Colin Farrell as mysterious MACUSA Auror (a highly trained officer to us muggles) Percival Graves. While Ezra Miller gives a damaged and very dark performance as the troubled and abused young man Credence, who’s character (and sub-plot) comes to get a bit muddled but Miller really delivers a strong turn in one of the darkest areas of the film.

Filled with wonder, a giddy eagerness for the future and a plethora of talented actors (from Ron Perlman as greedy Goblin Gnarlack to Alison Sudol as Queenie (Tina’s lovable sister), this is a film that really lays the groundwork for what hopes to be a promising new avenue in this universe. True the excitable tendencies of the writing at times and the more hectic areas of plotting does not always ensure a smooth ride but it is an intriguing start that introduces promising characters (and a propitious future villain) and plants the seeds for some areas of interest to come as Newt and his briefcase of magnificent magical wildlife is sure to come calling at the cinema again soon, and we look forward to seeing where he heads next.

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM / CERT: 12A / DIRECTOR: DAVID YATES / SCREENPLAY: J.K. ROWLING / STARRING: EDDIE REDMAYNE, KATHERINE WATERSTON, DAN FOGLER, ALISON SUDOL, COLIN FARRELL, EZRA MILLER  / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

Ben (Pinassi) is a despicable misogynistic failed thief who happens to come across Zelda (Townsend), a prostitute who used to be a child actor. What the pair has in common is utter depression and desire to commit suicide. Neither can actually bring themselves to do it, though, even though they want to make up for their past indiscretions. They bond together and attempt to do one final act of goodness – finding and saving a young girl who has been kidnapped by a gang of sex traffickers.

Together they drive across the country – with a pair of corpses in the boot of the car that Zelda neglects to mention – even attempting to get jobs to pay their way. Even that small part of the plan doesn’t go right as Ben doesn’t seem to be able to deal with people very well and Zelda has trouble remembering who ordered what. He’s a complete misogynist and, in fact, the first quarter of the film is spent showing us how bad and abhorrent he actually is. For a large part of the movie, he’s the kind of guy any reasonable person would avoid like the plague, offending with every action and utterance. However, it’s this precise reason that the pairing of Ben and Zelda works. He’s an arsehole and she’s a damaged soul but together they get along in a co-dependant way that depression sufferers often do and as we get to know a little bit more about them, we truly end up caring about the repulsive Ben.

Wolf Mother is very stylishly shot – almost too deliberately ‘cool’. At times it feels like a True Romance if it had been written by David Lynch. The Tarantino similarities don’t end there. The soundtrack is wall-to-wall hip tracks (although not of the type that people are familiar with) and the climax is among the bloodiest seen in a non-horror film for some time. Writer/director Carlson isn’t riffing on familiarity, though. There’s a unique flavour at play here, even if it’s bitter tasting.

Ben narrates the story noir-style (all the while being as offensive as possible), and once the pair goes on the road looking for the gang who took the girl there’s more than a touch of Bonnie and Clyde to Wolf Mother, but despite this, it’s not a typical underworld/criminal thriller. There are deeper subjects at play here. Be warned, though, they are dark and troubling themes, which are handled fantastically by all involved. The two leads are compelling and entirely convincing – particularly Pinassi, who even manages to make us care for such a reprehensible character – and Tom Sizemore makes a weighty cameo in an intensely powerful scene.

Wolf Mother is a slickly-made, powerful film about regret, secrets, and redemption. It won’t be for everybody and will certainly offend many with the frank portrayal of a sordid and disturbing world and can be uncomfortable viewing, but as a dark road movie about characters driven to the edge, it’s a compelling watch.

WOLF MOTHER / CERT: TBC / DIRECTOR & SCREENPLAY: ERIK PETER CARLSON / STARRING: TOM SIZEMORE, KEVIN PINASSI, NAJARRA TOWNSEND, MARY CAREY, MARIA OLSEN / RELEASE DATE: TBC (UK), OUT NOW (US)

Expected Rating: 5 out of 10
Actual Rating:

 

Director Kiyoshi Kurosawa (The Pulse, The Cure, Tokyo Sonata) is back with a satisfying slow burn of a thriller that picks the bones of Hitchcock while remaining faithful to the essential Kurosawa vision. Hidetoshi Nishijima plays an ex-cop turned criminal psychology teacher called Takakura who moves to the suburbs of Inagi City after a clash with a serial killer leaves him with serious physical and psychological injuries. His wife, Yasuko (played by Yûko Takeuchi) is lonely and unhappy as Takakura’s trauma has made him withdrawn. A charming neighbour, Nishino (Teruyuki Kagawa) takes the couple under his wing, but Takakura begins to suspect that this man may be a psychopath responsible for a series of unsolved murders in another part of the city. Takakura begins secretly to investigate Nishino, unaware that Yasuko has fallen under his less-than-benign influence.

One of the directors interviewed for the recent Hitchcock-Truffaut documentary, Kurosawa was quick to acknowledge his debt to the master of suspense, and Creepy – in terms of storyline – bears the hallmarks of classic Hitchcock. We have the theme of the neighbour under suspicion that underlies Rear Window; and the family member who isn’t what he appears to reflect Joseph Cotton’s Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt. But that’s where in the Hitchcock influence ends: in terms of style, Kurosawa observes a more Japanese tradition. At 130 minutes Creepy unfolds in a leisurely manner, but it’s the attention to detail in establishing a sense of place (the outskirts of a modern city) and the social rituals within the culture (food is a key motif in the film – several scenes depict the characters sharing meals together) that ultimately makes Creepy more than an run-of-the-mill thriller, turning it instead into an absorbing portrait of a disintegrating society.

Cinematographer Akiko Ashizawa creates a strong sense of time and place; his ‘scope framing constantly emphasising the spatial relationships between the characters and their place within the city environment. Tropes of the serial killer movie gradually break through as we begin to discover the truth about Nishino and his ‘daughter’, Mio. By then, Kurosawa has drawn us so fully into this world and the characters by the accretion of visual details that the thriller element becomes all the more rewarding for it.

Finally, as a study of social isolation and the collapse of nuclear family Creepy leaves an indelible impression on the viewer, and all the more so thanks to its slow but compelling thriller framework.

CREEPY (CELLULOID SCREAMS FILM FESTIVAL) / CERT: TBC / DIRECTOR: KIYOSHI KUROSAWA / STARRING: HIDETOSHI NISHIJIMA, TERUYUKI KAGAWA, YÛKO TAKEUCHI / RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 25TH

Back in 2012 many things were going down, The Dark Knight Rises concluded Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, The Avengers assembled and The Hunger Games offered audiences the starter for that franchise. However, in the festive winter of the year a film came along called Jack Reacher and in the process proved a little bit of a sleeper hit. Based on the 2005 novel One Shot by Lee Child, the film was the cinematic debut for Child’s towering former military police major, only onscreen the 6’5” tall character got a wee bit smaller as Tom Cruise was cast in the role. Needless to say this has caused a stir but Child was fine with it and Cruise is a tip top action man and thus the first film unexpectedly proved to be very entertaining, well thought out and blessed with a superb villain. So, naturally, we have this sequel, which many didn’t ask for but looks to capture a similar dose of action-packed enjoyment.

The film sees Reacher (Cruise) pulled back into action, after he intends to visit his regular contact Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), however upon arrival he finds she has been imprisoned under espionage charges. Smelling a rat, Reacher looks into her case and finds himself pulled in and incriminated too, which forces he and Turner on the run to solve this mystery. There is no avoiding it, this second adaptation of Child’s novels is a far more generic offering than the last film. Essentially the plot can be summarised in the words “corrupt officials” but as clichéd as it often is, Never Look Back is a watchable sequel that ought to pass the time, if not linger strong in the memory.

Cruise remains a compelling lead and what he lacks in size he makes up for in physicality and truly captures Reacher’s force of nature like power, as well as capturing the character’s loner identity. Also it is fantastic to see Smulders given a character, in Susan Turner, that does not victimise her but rather empowers and allows her to kick just as much ass as Reacher, in fact one scene addresses the dated gender politics of certain action pictures superbly. However, this sequel does often fall into the similar traps of films like Taken 2, as it lumbers the tour de force leads with an accomplice, that feels there just for the sake of giving the heroes a chink in the armour and at the convenience of the plot. While Danika Yarosh is good in the role, her turn as Samantha, whose sub-plot has strong links to Reacher’s past in the film, feels out of place onscreen and almost annoying and disruptive to the flow of Reacher and Turner’s investigation. Also, it must be said, the lack of a truly chilling villain akin to the first film’s Zec (memorably played by the lovable and eccentric Actor/Director Werner Herzog) is well and truly felt here.

The action zips along as does the plot, which is far less interestingly delivered than the last film, but Edward Zwick’s direction doesn’t quite seem to grab you as much as Christopher McQuarrie’s did last time but in spite of the film’s set backs there is still a decent action caper here. The investigative element is not fully realised but watching Reacher be fantastically observant and near unstoppable is unquestionably satisfying, as is Smulders as the no nonsense woman at his side trying to save her career and tarnished name. There is also a bone crunching final fight atop a roof that hits the right notes and offers a fitting climax. Never Go Back is not as fun, well written or surprising as the previous instalment and despite the plot going to well worn places and Samantha’s story feeling like paddling, the overall experience is not bad nor great, just enjoyable enough. Never Go Back features great leads and enough to interest you for the duration but while we wouldn’t say you’ll never go back to it, you won’t be returning all that often. That being said if this series does continue, we’d be more than happy to join Cruise (and Smulders for that matter) on another escapade.  

JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK / CERT: 12A / DIRECTOR: EDWARD ZWICK / SCREENPLAY: EDWARD ZWICK, RICHARD WENK, MARSHALL HERSKOVITZ / STARRING: TOM CRUISE, COBIE SMULDERS, DANIKA YAROSH, PATRICK HEUSINGER / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

It
would seem that the Krampus legend has become the seasonal fad of American
horror. Last Christmas, Michael Dougherty introduced the Eastern European
anti-Clause via his big budget gremlins-inspired Christmas caper Krampus, the
success spawned numerous cash-ins. Robert Conway’s 2015 film Krampus: The Reckoning wasn’t so good,
this year’s unconnected follow up Krampus:
Unleashed, isn’t quite the improvement you might’ve hoped for.

Where the first film had a kind of Grimm
fairy tale angle, this film goes down the adventure horror route and breaks the
Krampus out of hibernation on account of an ancient buried treasure. There’s
some semblance of thought, but not a huge amount of common sense or craft. Sure
it’s better than Conway’s first Krampus flick, but that’s not saying much. The
dialogue feels clunky and overdone, the acting is passable yet never involving,
and worst perhaps is that its plain old dull.

Conway doesn’t seem to know whether he
wants us to enjoy watching the Krampus dole out carnage or cower at its
ruthlessness. Either way, there’s mixed messages in all directions. Whoever was
handling the gore obviously had a good idea of the film’s tone, because the
deaths seem to fit in with the silly B-Movie quality more than most of the
film.

Krampus itself looks pretty dull and far
too much like a Halloween costume. The CGI abomination from Krampus: The Reckoning was unsettlingly
bad, whereas the one here is just plain bad. Again there are tonal
inconsistencies; prolonged sequences of Krampus shuffling around in the light,
and supposedly tense moments where it seems to move lightning fast. The comedy
isn’t big enough, and the scares aren’t quite sincere.

There’s potential here for a good horror
comedy (rednecks mistake Krampus prints for Bigfoot) but Conway takes things
too seriously and spends too much time acquainting us with Krampus fodder
families. Krampus: Unleashed feels
most comfortable when its offing terrible people with terrible violence, we
just wish it did that more.

KRAMPUS UNLEASHED / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR & SCREENPLAY: ROBERT CONWAY / STARRING: AMELIA BRANTLEY, BRYSON HOLL, CAROLINE LASSETTER, TAYLOR BUCKLEY, TIM SAUER / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

Expected Rating: 5’/10
Actual:
 

Recently, while reviewing the utterly
bizarre Mecanix, we suggested that Canada was historically the best bet for
anyone in search of extreme filmmaking. Perhaps we should have said Mexico, because
the new wave of weirdness flowing from that quarter is seriously challenging
for the crown. You might want to pour yourself a stiff drink before embarking
on We Are The Flesh because it pushes limits most mainstream movies won’t go
near. But for all the death and depravity it delivers, there’s a creative passion
at play that makes for compelling cinema. 

A teenage
brother and sister stumble across a derelict building occupied by a grizzled
old artist with a serious hygiene problem. Despite this, the two wastrels
swiftly fall under his spell, entranced by his Mephistophelean manner. Initially
they assist him with an art project to convert his grime-encrusted flat into
what looks like an alien cave set from Space:1999. But before long, things take
a dark turn and he has them eating human flesh (supplied via a mysterious Lynchian
serving hatch), indulging in incestuous sex, doing all manner of things with
bodily excretions and cannibalising a passing soldier. All unpaid work, of
course, although anyone who ever interned with Damien Hirst or Tracy Emin won’t
be in the least bit surprised by any of the above.

Debut
director/writer Emiliano Rocha Minter’s script is slight, but might best be
experienced as a descent into a playfully Mexican version of Hieronymus Bosh’s The
Garden of Earthly Delights. As the transformative shenanigans of the movie progress, the single-apartment
location moves from a colour-drained Tarkovsky-styled dump into warmly-lit
otherworld, courtesy of some excellent design and cinematography. Classical
music, the Mexican National Anthem and a discordant soundscape align behind the
performances and visuals to seal a very particular kind of deal.

Minter is helped
by a cast for whom the term dedicated is probably an understatement. No matter
how unhinged your set-up, you still need strong performances – we call it the ‘Jack
Nance Test’ – and all three main players pass with distinction. Front and
centre as the demonic perved piper, lead actor Noe Hernandez seems to be channelling
Terry Gilliam’s stock-in-trade madman from Monty Python before a third act
transformation into a reborn, clean-shaven version of the same character. It’s
a boggle-eyed marvel of a performance; you completely buy this charismatic
lunatic’s power to coerce and entrance his young disciples. He is the living
spirit of rebellion, an agent of chaos so fiendish he’d frighten most Middle
Englanders down a rabbit hole. The campaign to get this as a free DVD giveaway
with the Mail On Sunday starts here.

We Are The Flesh is a bizarrely
arresting treat from an exciting new talent. It’s also just about the strangest
film you’ll see this year. Why dip your toes in the pool when you can swan dive
with a double twist?

WE ARE THE FLESH / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR & SCREENWRITER: EMILIANO ROCHA MINTER / STARRING: NOE HERNANDEZ, MARIA EVOLI, DIEGO GAMALIEL, GABINO RODRIGUEZ, MARIA CID / RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 18TH

Expected Rating: 6/10
Actual:
 

Six years after exploding onto the
international horror scene with The Loved
Ones, Australian director Sean Byrne returns with this heavy-metal inspired
tale that combines possession, haunted houses and serial killers. Struggling
painter Jesse Hellman (played by Cheap Thrills’ Ethan Embry) moves his family
into a rural Texan pile with dreams of a better life, unaware that the house
they have just bought is the site of Satanic influence and child murder. When
the former occupier Ray Smiley (Taylor Vince) returns ‘home’ one night to find
the family firmly ensconced in their new abode, he sets his sights instead on their
metal-head daughter, Zooey (Glasco), as his next sacrifice to the dark lord. Beset
by disturbing visions, Jesse finds himself trying to save his own sanity while preventing
his daughter from becoming the titular ‘devil’s candy’.

At
heart, despite its heavy metal trimmings, Byrne’s first American movie is a
fairly – dare we say it – conservative scare show. Jesse may be a heavy metal
dad, but he’s otherwise as conventional as any Stephen King hero. A normal family
guy trying to do his best for his wife and kids but beset by unspeakable
horrors that are resolutely Other. There are token shades of The Amityville Horror as Jesse finds his
mental state deteriorating as a result of the house’s malefic influence, turning
his butterfly canvases into Hieronymus Bosch depictions of purgatory (a rather
hackneyed device, that); but Byrne refrains from casting any real doubts on our
hero’s inherent goodness, any genuine aspersions on his character. He’s no Jack
Nicholson in The Shining, doing
battle with the darkness within, and we are never really led to think he might do anything awful to his family.
Instead, the only truly bad guy in the film is Taylor Vince; and so The Devil’s Candy ends up playing out a
fairly run-of-the-mill home invasion scenario as the good family battle the evil
child killer doing Satan’s bidding.

There’s
a lot of Christian good vs. evil symbolism in the film, pitted against metal
music: crucifix versus the Gibson Flying V, for example; and for the most part
we’re not really sure whose side Byrne is really on. After all, Smiley likes
nothing more than to play guitar with the volume turned up to eleven, which must
surely mean it’s a conduit for the devil. Having said that, Jesse does
ultimately find vindication through his axe, which must also mean metal is a
force for good!

Either
way, The Devil’s Candy is enjoyable
hokum; a mildly effective horror ride, but – it has to be said – somewhat tame
in comparison to The Loved Ones.

THE
DEVIL’S CANDY (CELLULOID SCREAMS/MAYHEM FILM FESTIVAL) / CERT: TBA / DIRECTOR:
SEAN BYRNE / STARRING: ETHAN EMBRY, SHIRI APPLEBY, KIARA GLASCO, PRUITT TAYLOR
VINCE / RELEASE DATE: TBA

Expected Rating: 8/10
Actual: