Stalker

This is an (oddly unacknowledged) re-make of the 1970's film "House on Straw Hill". The gender of the protagonist has been changed to female, but the same basic plot remains--a blocked writer, who is trying to finish a novel, hires a sinister secretary, who quickly takes over both her book and her life (and casually murders several people). The ending of this movie though goes in quite a bit different direction.

The movie was directed by Martin Kemp, who is mostly known for his acting and music. The original "House on Straw Hill" was the only British film to be labeled as a "video nasty" during the infamous British censorship hysteria of the early 80's (most of the other banned "nasties" were Italian cannibal films or obscure American horror flicks). It was banned not because it really had that much violence or that much sex, but what the authorities considered to be an unhealthy combination of the two. Oddly, this remake has less violence and far less sex than the 70's version.

The cast is interesting. Udo Kier, who played the protagonist in the original is sorely missed, but Linda Hayden, who originally played the sexy psycho secretary gets a cameo role as the housekeeper (which is odd since she has had nothing good to say about the original film over the years). Her former role meanwhile is played by Jane March, who has had a remarkably similar career to Hayden. Both appeared in notorious erotically-themed films as teenagers ("The Lover" and "Color of Night" for March and "Baby Love" and "Blood on Satan's Claw" for Hayden) that may have hindered their later careers (March has done little work since the 1990's while most of Hayden's later work was in goofy sex comedies and a cameo role in "Boys from Brazil"). March is not nearly as good as Hayden in this role, neither as sexy nor as deliciously evil, but I think Hayden was just a much better actress (extremely underrated actually).

Frankly, this whole project is a very strange undertaking since the original film is still essentially MIA in Britain and is only getting a DVD release in America this year. And the remake doesn't even use either title of the original (which is better known as "Expose" in Britain), but goes with the bland title "Stalker" (actually, also the title of great Tarkovsky film). The movie itself isn't bad, but this whole project seems very odd and misguided.

A question I ask rhetorically. An interesting 70s shocker/video nasty with a unique cast, Udo Kier, Linda Hayden and Fiona Richmond, and loaded with rape, softcore sex, simulated masturbation and slashing. Did it need an updated remake? Not to mention I Spit On Your Grave, Mothers Day, House on Sorority Row, Black Christmas and many more low-budget slashers shot in the 70s and 80s that producers decided to remake in watered down versions for no reason.

What I don't understand is why Linda Hayden would trash this film and then appear in the remake.

The 1976 film 'Trauma,' also known as 'Exposé,' was "nasty" in legal terms and certainly in terms of its violent content, but well made and enjoyable such as it was. Modern remakes of older genre flicks are always dicey in one way or another (most often by needlessly being bloodier, or simply More), but to revisit a concept doesn't mean new renditions can't be worthwhile on their own merits. I think there are some promising aspects of 2010's 'Stalker' - but on the other hand, it also begins to form an impression rather quickly, and I can't say it's a good one. I had mixed expectations in the first place, and regrettably I think those were pretty spot on.

There's little need for comparison, except perhaps to note that for however harsh 'Trauma' got at any point, the plot progressed with natural fluidity. That is absolutely not the case here. There's nothing inherently wrong with starting out with the same root premise (an author with writer's block, a tumultuous relationship with a personal assistant), then taking the story in other directions; there's nothing inherently wrong with fashioning additional narrative elements beyond the core. There are some good ideas in the screenplay. But as the director overseeing the production, Martin Kemp approaches the material with astonishingly blunt, heavy-handed, club-footed indelicacy, and this is reflected in most every element. The plot development here is curt, blocky, and unconvincing - so bare-faced that we can easily predict the outcome before there's any sort of reveal. There's not a trace of nuance in any of the performances, and as a result chief stars Anna Brecon and Jane March become sad points of aggravation. We're treated to a few would-be "gotcha!" moments or jump scares in early scenes for no reason, a tack which is subsequently dropped.

I actually quite like the notions that are put into 'Stalker,' flavors that lightly recall yet certainly diverge from antecedent 'Trauma.' I love psychological horror; it's one of my favorite genres. It is also, however, a genre that emphatically requires finesse, and without it the resulting picture all but falls apart and becomes boring. Even more to the point, any story that culminates with a "twist" needs to keep the truth hidden away until a singular precise moment, or at least dole out only miniscule kernels for the attentive spectator to pick up on. Here the lack of subtlety is so prominent and glaring that there effectively is no twist, and what we're left with comes off as merely a hollow trope.

It didn't need to be like this; 'Stalker' could have been a good movie. It's not just Kemp's direction, though, because even the screenplay as written would have needed significant rewrites to paint over the neon lights that inform the predictability. I hoped to enjoy this, but I really can't say that I did. Whether you're a fan of someone involved, of the 1976 film with Udo Kier and Linda Hayden, or just a cinephile generally, there's no real need to check this out. I wish all on hand the best of success, and hope lessons have been learned from the mistakes, but as it stands 2010's 'Stalker' is just a big lump of coal.

One reviewer claims this isn't a horror film then seeks to justify that comment by saying there's very little gore. Dear me, when did good horror require gore? If done with a bit of style, atmosphere, decent acting and a proper understanding of and respect for the genre, then it's not needed at all. The interesting thing is that the writer and director is none other than Martin Kemp. The man has gone from child actor to pop start to cinematic gangster to soap star to music revivalist to screenwriter and director...and like everything else he's done, he's been successful! Interesting too that he would know much about the infamous Hose on Straw Hill/Expose film of the mid-70s. Perhaps other reviewers would question that films horror veracity too? Here Kemp remakes with a considerable twist (albeit a somewhat clichéd one) and even brings back Linda Hayden who played a younger, saucier character back in the day. From the original film to Hammer Dracula to the awesome 'Blood On Satan's Claw', Linda is always a welcome contributor. Convincing performances from Jane March and Billy 'The Bill' Murray also help and it's mice to see the excellent Colin Salmon, though he seems less comfortable. In short, a psycho thriller type horror film that isn't particularly original but successfully evokes the feel of mid-70s independent British horror. I hope that Kemp makes more of these.

Before I explain why I removed 3 stars I will say this is a good film . it just could have been better with a few minor changes. The Real Lead Anna Brecon did a fantastic job as did most everyone else I can recommend this on a rainy or foggy night. Did the lead Character tell anyone she had a PA coming to help her ? Did Linda The PA introduce herself to he writer ? Just Say Personal Assistant because Not everyone knows what a PA is . If my 2 questions would have been answered in that 4 minutes that were edited from the version I saw sorry but I had to take a star for that hole in the set up .I didn't remove a star for the fact that the film makers chose to push the less important character Linda as the Lead in the film when she isn't. The Actress playing Linda isn't the better actress of the 2 and she hasn't learned to speak her lines Clearly. When the 1st human was killed the killer mumbles the second half of the lines but lucky for the audience later we hear that Full line from a recording Where Surprise the lines were clearly spoken otherwise we would have no idea what was said and it's important to the plot . But I didn't remove a star for that .The film loses a second star for the movie cover because it gives too much away .It lost a 3rd star for allowing the villain to too quickly & too easily without justification or explanation bully the lead character into submission when saying "The servants have to leave they annoy me ." Yes the actress who you gave 1st billing Linda Overacts If she usually does a lot of stage acting and didn't adjust herself to the small screen that could explain that. Otherwise a well written ,directed and acted film .