Cherry Tree Lane

Another hoody film.

A boring couple have their home invaded by some scumbags looking to exact revenge on their son. The usual tying up and degradation of the main characters takes place. The problem is I didn't care about them. The characters were so clichéd and one dimensional that I felt nothing for them.

The lead thug is just a ridiculous ball of unthinking testosterone that he's unbelievable. Couple this with his sidekick thug with a heart and it just gets stupider. I spent the whole film just hating the main thug, which I suppose was the intent. But I was just waiting to see him die and had no interest with anything else. Then just when you think the limits of believability can't be stretched any further, the thug's girlfriend shows up with her little brother in tow to watch. I think even an idiot would doubt a school child's ability to keep his mouth shut about witnessing the events which take place, but they let him stay all the same.

I'm not really a fan of the this kind of film but I had enjoyed the directors other films so I thought I'd check it out. Now I've seen it I never want to see it again.

Over nearly a decade of seeing films at the EIFF you naturally come across some bad films. Cherry Tree Lane falls into the category below that, the one were referring to it as "film" is an insult to other films. In short the whole "film" is a padding out of a 5 minute scene from a drama club or the like that doesn't even manage to make a full 90 minutes (estimated 75 minutes). The dialogue could easily have been improvised by the very young cast and the only directing tricks Paul seems so posses is ultra close-ups or foreground-object whilst we watch the scene in the background.

Leaving the second screening the audience were shocked at how bad the film was and for the second half, people were laughing at moments of apparent tension due to the complete lack of any substance or idea. The most laughable thing of all is this was actually up for the Audience Award! With one exception this is quite possibly the worst British film ever made (the worst being The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael).

Cherry Tree Lane is an urban thriller about a couple whose home is invaded one night by a gang of youths who wish to harm their absent son. While they wait for the boy, they mete out some physical and psychological torture. Like all house-invasion movies this is a very disturbing film. It's not entirely dissimilar to notorious exploitation films such as House on the Edge of the Park (1980). Although, admittedly, the sexual violence in this thriller is committed off-screen unlike that earlier film's non-stop barrage of sexual assault. Nevertheless, Cherry Tree Lane is certainly in the same general ball-park, just toned down and with better acting performances.

All of the action is restricted to the interior of the house at the fateful address, generating considerable claustrophobia. The villains are typical London gansta youths - this is a house invasion movie for the hoody generation. It plays on middle-class fears of gangs of violent working-class youths. The young hoodlums seem to have come from a different world from their victims. They have no use for the contents that make up the unfortunate couple's home such as bottles of red wine or their DVD collection. This uneasy chemistry adds to the tension and adds a different undercurrent to proceedings. The film does stretch believability a little with the introduction of two teenage girls and a young schoolboy into the fray; they act as if this is a normal night out but it just seems inconceivable that they could be so blasé in this extreme situation. Nevertheless, the introduction of these characters does allow for the set-up in the final scene in the movie, in which things are left hanging on an unanswered question that leaves the viewer wondering if the horror of the night has in fact ended at all.

Overall this is not an easy film. It's intense and sometimes difficult to watch, and it truly offers no respite by the end. So Cherry Tree Lane is certainly not a film for everyone. But for those with a mind for something dark and troubling, it's a journey worth taking.

Doing a bit of channel hopping tonight and we came across this movie. My other half almost instantly wanted to change channels as the description of a psychological slasher piece involving some revengeful teenagers didn't appeal to her on any level. I protested and said let's at least watch the start and see how it develops. And I'm so glad we did.

It's a quite tense and edgy piece that could easily be a stage show, all very contained. The acting is pretty good, the script is basic but it does the job, the plot is nothing more than you'd expect. Yet somehow the whole thing is greater then the sum of its pieces in my opinion.

Even though I don't have any great affection for the characters, I found myself rooting for them, or laughing with them, or sighing with them. I think this film does moral terpitude very well, I think it largely avoids cliché, even though the subject might feel that way sometimes. I don't know how I missed this three years ago, but I'm glad to have caught up with it now.

Elements of Straw Dogs perhaps, although this feature manages the central dilemma of that horror in a much more intelligent fashion. I think that's what I enjoyed the most really, the way it did horror through implication.

Like hoodie-horror Eden Lake before it, Cherry Tree Lane attempts to scare the viewer by tapping into their innate fear of the yob generation, depicting a law-abiding, middle-class, suburban couple at the mercy of a vicious gang of 'yoofs' (before the tables are eventually turned for a brief but satisfying slice of retribution).

Writer/director Paul Andrew Williams handles the material confidently enough (certainly better than the dreadful black comedy of his previous film The Cottage) and commands solid performances from his cast, young and old, but while I cannot deny that the film packs a powerful emotional wallop, largely thanks to its unsettling sense of realism, I do feel that the extremely thin plot isn't quite strong enough to sustain an entire feature film. Even at a scant 74 minutes (according to my DVD), there's a fair amount of padding; the movie would have been more successful had Williams added a bit more 'meat' to his narrative, or if the whole thing had just been a bit shorter.