Film review: Candyman (1992)

Directed by: Bernard Rose

Written by: Clive Barker & Bernard Rose

Starring: Virginia Madsen, Tony Todd, Kasi Lemmons & Vanessa Williams

    

A few friends and I thought a horror film night was on the cards given that Halloween is just around the corner, we pooled together a few films and started picking our favourites. I hadn’t heard of Candyman before, it was borrowed from a friend of a friend and came recommended, and quickly inspired interest from the group. Not being a horror connoisseur I knew I would enjoy the film watching experience, as for the film itself, I imagined a typical early 90’s slasher with some minor plotholes sprinkled with some shaky casting, none of this mattered however because it was a film fright night and I’m a coward. 

So, in the words of Alfie, 'what's it all about?' Well, the Candyman (Tony Todd) is a seemingly tragic mythological legend which is brought to reality when his name is uttered five times in a mirror. He has a bloody hook for a hand and reaps murderous revenge whenever he appears.  Sceptical grad students Helen (Virginia Madsen) and Bernadette (Kasi Lemmons) accidently beckon Candyman as they research the theory behind the legend.

Candyman is almost everything you would want in a horror film, you have the spooky yet intriguing backstory, the unprepared college students and enough nasty death scenes you can shake a hook at. If you are looking for a jump this Halloween then this is definitely the film to do it, at least for the first half hour or so. I was toying with the idea not to include the name of the actor who portrayed the Candyman in the above paragraph in order to maintain a level of anonymity, I will explain why Tony Todd has been named in my review of Candyman. What makes an effective horror flick to me is not all the blood and gore (although it helps), it’s often what you don’t see as opposed to what you do see which is most scary, so it’s disappointing that Candyman’s face (Tony Todd) is revealed earlier than I would expect from a horror film. Once revealed, the Candyman’s strange and spooky mystique is somewhat diluted, I guess that’s what makes Halloween’s character Michael Myers so terrifying, the mask, the unknown, the unknown forces the audience to fill in the gaps with their imagination. The same applies to Heath Ledger’s brilliant portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight, we think ‘what’s underneath it all?’ – ‘I bet it’s scary’. Unfortunately, Candyman loses that important element, which if included would have made this a truly excellent horror film.

You’ll be forgiven for thinking that a film called Candyman will have some sort of relevance to candy, unless I missed something fundamental, I didn’t see much significance in the name, perhaps it was eluded to when I left the room to grab some more popcorn for everyone. It is fortunate therefore that there are plenty of reasons to watch this film, the setting for instance, much of the film is set in Chicago’s Cabrini-Green housing project, the urban location adds a unique component to the movie, horror films tend to heavily rely on that secluded rundown house in the woods, so it’s refreshing to see a film take all the essential pieces of an effective location and place it in a more populated urban environment, making a neglected city estate that new shack in the woods. It’s also worth noting that Virginia Madsen turns my anticipation of questionable acting over on its head by giving an immersive performance, while Tony Todd commands the screen with his strong physique and booming voice. Candyman isn’t afraid to consider important issues such as racism and poverty that certainly highlight real-life subjects of the early 1990’s which also remains relevant and poignant today. 

This movie comprises of just about the right stuff to make you afraid of your bathroom mirror for a few weeks, who cares that it breaks the ‘be afraid of the unknown’ code sooner than expected, with enough blood to make Freddy Krueger wince Candyman should top your Halloween fright night list.

Fractured Batman Mask

It's about time I watched The Dark Knight Rises again.

Star Wars Illustrations

I grabbed a coffee, opened my sketchbook and hoped the force was with me - it wasn't, I spilt my coffee.

Film review: The Fundamentals of Caring (2016)

Embed from Getty Images

Directed by: Rob Burnett
Written by: Jonathan Evision (novel), Rob Burnett (screenplay)

Starring: Paul Rudd, Craig Roberts, Selena Gomez

Following a tragic loss Ben (Paul Rudd) decides to become a care giver, he is employed as a full-time carer for Trevor (Craig Roberts) and whilst on a week’s road trip they both see life from a different perspective.

The Fundamentals of Caring is another feature length that Netflix have added to their ever-growing library of films. Exploring anguish and bereavement; this recent Netflix instalment seems to follow an already well established theme, the notion of helping someone disadvantaged and in return overcoming personal grief. The title doesn’t slip off the tongue either (I had to double check it before writing this review), you may forget the relevance of the title as ‘the fundamentals of caring’ is a quick whistle-stop mention at the beginning of the film however not all movies can be as obvious as Snakes on a Plane.  At the beginning, Trevor’s mother explains to Ben that her son suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, she goes on to say that he is very anxious and only ever leaves the house on a Thursday when he is taken to the park for a few hours. So when Trevor is introduced you may find yourself surprised by his overtly confident humour and self-assured behaviour which doesn’t quite fit what we have been led to believe about him, nevertheless it’s taken on the chin which wouldn’t be the case should the script have been half as entertaining. Roberts and Rudd make an unlikely pairing however they delight with wonderful complimenting performances. To say that the plot is familiar is not to say that it’s a tired or weary film, in fact far from it, just don’t expect the most original piece on Netflix.  

Film review: American Honey (2016)

Director: Andrea Arnold

Written: Andrea Arnold

Starring: Sasha Lane, Shia LaBeouf

American Honey tells the story of Star (Sasha Lane), a teenager from an impoverished background who finds herself traveling across America’s Midwest with a motley magazine sales crew.

American Honey certainly has a story to tell, it explores the struggling youth of America with unfiltered honesty. Sasha Lane presents raw talent as she makes a performance of someone who has been film acting for years, which makes this debut for her even more astounding. Shia LaBeouf plays Jake, with charm and charisma he becomes the crew’s most successful magazine salesman. American Honey relies on an improvised script and a young talented cast to drive the narrative forward, effectively focusing on the troubles of youth, poverty, sex and drugs. Lane and LaBeouf’s on screen chemistry is palpable as their characters develop a mutual attraction to one another, intimate scenes are presented with real and almost embarrassingly raw detail (so not one to watch with the parents).

So, seated in the middle row, screen 1 at the Curzon in Canterbury, I watched American Honey having read almost nothing at all previously about the film. With considerable curiosity I started to wonder ‘what makes this film different yet somewhat familiar?’, I couldn’t help but smile when it dawned on me. The film is shot in the academy ratio of 1.37, giving the screen a squarer frame, reminding me of the eye pleasing filters of Instagram, which is an appropriate and ingenious cinematic ploy to give the film an extra nod towards youth. The cinematography is fantastic so it’s unfortunate that the major pitfall to this film is in the editing, at almost 3 hours in length you find yourself worrying whether you’ve put enough money in the carpark meter. The semi-adlib script is a huge credit to American Honey however couple this with the running time it may make you wish for a conclusion about 30 minutes before it comes.

This film is far from avoidable however, it shines a bright light on some really important themes with wonderful direction, just make sure you’re comfortable and you’re not pressed for time.

I'd loved to hear from you, let me know your thoughts below.  

Film review: The Wrong Man (1956)

Embed from Getty Images

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Maxwell Anderson & Angus MacPhail

Starring: Henry Fonda, Vera Miles & Anthony Quayle

I know I have already taken a look at a Hitchcock lately so my apologies for being samey, however you can’t ignore a great can you? The Wrong Man is a true story of ‘Manny’ Balestrero, an innocent man with a wife and children to support is accused of a crime he didn’t commit.

In a sense The Wrong Man is a typical but yet atypical Hitchcock film. An everyday man has been caught up in a case of mistaken identity, quickly spiralling from a curious coincidence to a helpless set of circumstances; this all sounds very Hitchcock as it seems to be a popular theme explored by the director. Henry Fonda gives a completely believable performance of the accused, his ability to command scenes whilst making himself appear powerless is compelling and owes to the uncontrollable situation he finds himself in. Vera Miles matches her co-star with an excellent portrayal of a supportive wife tormented by guilt to the point of mental exhaustion, this to a degree splits the narrative into an interesting subplot, which I was hoping would develop further.

Out of respect to the true events and mindful of not distracting the audience Alfred Hitchcock doesn’t make a trademark cameo appearance as he has done in previous films, instead he introduces the picture before the opening credits. The film is thoroughly watchable; you find yourself paying attention to the smallest details, the quick glimpses between characters for instance, this certainly left me thinking - is this wonderful direction or clever misdirection from Hitchcock? The Wrong Man is taken to grittier, more serious and more poignant heights than say his later North by Northwest (1959) movie. Art designer Paul Sylbert designed authentic New York sets and helped Hitchcock achieve some of the films more memorable shots, most notably where Fonda is seen in a prison cell through the door hatch which is done by using a wide angle lens.

It’s really hard to criticise an Alfred Hitchcock, to do so would be some sort of cardinal sin – so best mentioned quickly, I felt that the implications of the wrongful accusation could have been further explored, particularly how Rose Balestrero was affected however this may just be due to Vera Miles’ strong portrayal that added to the intrigue. Perplexingly The Wrong Man is one of those Hitchcock’s that is often overlooked, with some advanced cinematography and captivating performances, this is certainly a plausible drama from the film-noir era that deserves not to be forgotten.

Film review: Blair Witch (2016)

Directed by: Adam Wingard

Written by: Simon Barrett

Starring: James Allen McCune, Callie Hernandez, Brandon Scott & Corbid Reid.

Spooked

My pal really wanted to see Blair Witch at the cinema, horror is an acquired taste and unfortunately for Bob he struggled to drum up any interest from friends to go with him. I have never been in a rush to dip into my wallet and see a horror movie at the cinema, that been said Bob and I previously studied The Blair Witch Project (1999) at school (media class) and I remember being intrigued by the original cult film and was interested to see the sequel. So I searched high and low for that cinema gift card I received last Christmas and agreed to see a late showing with my friend.

So, Blair Witch in brief (without spoilers). James and his friends document their time in Burkittsville Woods, Maryland as they investigate the mysterious disappearance of James’ sister Heather. Heather and her friends went missing in 1994 as they attempted to film a documentary on the legend of the Blair Witch.

The movie as you would expect begins in a similar vein as its predecessor, the concept and direction is the same with some 21^st century gimmicks such as earpiece cameras and a drone to map the forest. No doubt Blair Witch delivers on the ‘jump out of your seat’ front however this is often because the characters bump into each other during intense moments, bum clenching nonetheless. This as it may, there is an underlying feeling throughout the film that it is very much relying on the uniqueness of the Blair Witch Project released some 17 years earlier, the first in the franchise earnt its place in the horror hall of fame due it’s low budget originality. In comparison, the sequel appears to be on the face of it nothing new. With regards to accepting most horror films (or any film for that matter) the audience has to take a leap of faith, not everything on screen will reflect reality, real human emotions or decisions; so enjoying with a pinch of salt comes to mind. I feel the plot in the Blair Witch was so close to the original it made the characters look somewhat foolish, you end up asking ‘why are they going into the woods?’, ‘you may need to pee, but why are you leaving the camp alone?’ – it’s true, as a viewer you are confused by the decisions the characters make, they are aware of the legend of the Blair Witch, they’ve also seen the original documentary tapes from 1994, so why on earth are they doing the exact same thing?

I feel that I’m not selling this film at all and that’s certainly not my intention, Blair Witch achieves what it sets out to do. The fact that there’s a predictable and lurking sensation that the characters are looking for trouble for the most part can be ignored. Due to the documentary style filmography Blair Witch inevitably remains terrifying, unsupported by a musical score the film relies on the point of view perspective to suture the audience into the intensity of each scene. Dramatic night scenes leave the audience yearning for the respite comfort of a day time scene. And when the day scene never arrives you find yourself exhausted by the uncertainty of the darkness. In the interest of transparency, I have to mention that my friend Bob and I did adopt the foetal position as we watched the final 15 minutes of the film through our hands, I can’t deny that I felt a little pathetic as I glanced over my shoulder to see the calm composure of the row behind.

With this in mind I think it’s important to note that I am a coward and I do scare easy. Perhaps you’ve seen the Blair Witch and you have a different view, feel free to leave a comment on this post, I would be intrigued to hear your thoughts.

Back to the Future (Parts I & II)

How many of us were hoping for a hoverboard last year?
(2015 - Marty McFly's hoverboard)

"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 mph...
you're gonna see some serious shit"
Doc Brown