vmvm

This is good little shocker; not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but tight, competent and disturbing. An excellent example of a simple idea developed into a compelling 90 minute script.

The set up requires no bells and whistles, no lengthy exposition or wordy back story; Kate (Franka Pontente), a young German business woman living in London, drifts off whilst waiting for the last tube train. She awakens to find the place deserted, but quickly comes to realise that she is far from alone. Someone, or something, is down there with her and it's intentions are wholly malicious.

In fact she encounters several other characters in her quest to survive, including a lecherous work colleague, a homeless couple and a caged sewage worker, all of whom add pace and substance to the plot. There is a slightly awkward gear change somewhere in the middle of the film when tension thriller mutates into gore fest, but nothing so clumsy as to slow the hectic pace. For those of you with weak dispositions this is likely to be a harrowing ride; for those of you who relish a bit of well executed carnal mayhem this should press all the right buttons.

The climax of the film is perhaps less successful than the main body of the film, but it is punctuated with a nice moment of unexpected social commentary which provides a satisfying conclusion.

Some may find themselves feeling somewhat cheated of a clear explanation as to the exact nature and history of the threat encountered by Kate and her confederates, however, for me this was not the case. A horror film writer should not need feel compelled to dot every i and cross every t, in the same way a writer of political thrillers might be expected to. There are enough clues here to give you a very pretty clear idea of what brought this evil into existence, making a detailed and conclusive solution superfluous. The retention of a certain sense of mystery is to be welcomed and reminds us that in this film the ride was always going to be more important than the exact destination.

My understanding is that the budget for this film was, to say the least, minimal, in which case our applause for this British horror should be all the louder, for at no point does one have the impression of corners being cut or effects failing to deliver.

If this sounds like your kind of film then it probably is. Buy a ticket and climb aboard.

This is a film which is likely to divide audiences even more strongly than the forth coming US Presidential election. What divides the two camps may not be so much to do with the quality of the film, but of the expectations they bring to the cinema with them. Unfortunately the publicity machine for this movie, over which the director may have limited influence, has decided to promote it as a conventional horror movie. Understandably those who have settled back in their seats and prepared for two hours bloodcurdling mayhem are likely to be somewhat disappointed to find that love is, at least, as important an element as fear in this story. The story concerns a village of American pioneers who live lives of simple purity and moral virtue, where the word of the village elders is respected and where a sense of community is prized above all. However this pastoral idyll is an oasis of civilization surrounded by a ring of dark forest in which lurk a dangerous and sinister threat to their continued existence, 'those who cannot be named'. When the tale begins there appears to be an understanding between the two groups; the settlers will not stray into the woods and the creatures will not venture into the village clearing. However this cosy equilibrium is about to be seriously challenged. The cast is packed to the hand tooled rafters with the great and the good of American cinema and it is genuinely refreshing to see stars of the caliber of Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt and Adrien Brody taking parts in what is essential an ensemble piece, rather than a traditional star vehicle. Having said that there are two roles which do stand proud of the pack, those of Lucius Hunt and Ivy Walker taken by Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard. Joaquin is not one of my favourite actors. Although his 'debut' in To Die For promised so much, for me, very little of that has subsequently been realized. I thought his performances particularly in Gladiator and Quills were heavy handed and unconvincing. Perhaps it was the fact that Lucius is a far more quiet and thoughtful individual, but his performance here came far closer to my initially expectations and he seemed to imbue the character with a profundity often missing from his previous performances. However the run away star of this film is without doubt Bryce Dallas Howard, daughter of Oscar winning director and carrot-topped Happy Days square, Ron. Her performance as a girl who is at once bright, funny, caring and blind is astonishingly convincing. So often actors called upon to portray a disability get so lost in the technicalities that they ignore the true character of the person, but Bryce gives us the full package with astonishing economy. The plot moves, not so much slowly, as carefully, the pressure and mystery building steadily and delivering in time both a swerve and a twist. The first is beautiful executed and is a moment of cinema which will stay with you long after the novelty of the secondary twist has been picked apart and discarded. If you have not seen The Village I would urge you to go, but leave your preconceptions with your ticket stub at the door. This is a film which defies simple genre definitions, so open your mind as wide as your eyes and prepare to be told an extraordinary story.

Oh, one so hates to go against the grain, but this film was a great disappointment to me. Where other gems from the far east, such as Dark Water and The Eye, managed to so successfully blend character, atmosphere, tension and plot this film just seemed to mash them all up together into a deeply unsatisfying gruel. I have just been perusing the message boards and am frankly aghast that so much time has been spent trying to make sense of the convoluted and contrived plot. More amazing still is that, given all the man hours at the keyboard, no one seems any closer a comprehensive explanation than they did when they started. One is tempted at first to concluded that the various twists and revelations contained within the film are too clever by half, but on closer examination we find they are less that half as clever as the viewer deserves. This is a tale not only of two sisters, but also of a wicked step mother, an indifferent father, a suicide, a murder, a ghost, an asylum, another ghost and a closet. Or is it? Or was it? Or will it prove to be? Jumping about chronologically like a time machine with hiccups and failing to establish any clear narrative threads this was a screenplay in need of serious editing and major rewriting long before the camera started turning. There were plenty of great ideas here, they just didn't all belong in the same movie and by forcing them all to cohabit the script we were left with a product which was for me considerably less than the sum of it's parts. Admittedly it's parts, like those of the curates egg, are not all bad; not by a long chalk. Individual scenes conjure a genuine sense of dread and tension, malice and suspense. The photography is in places breathtaking and the performances are confident and yet subtle. Sadly, however, this is not enough. I believe this is a not a film alive with ambiguity and mystery as so many seem to suggest; but one plagued by confusion and compromise. Girls, go to your room and don't come down until you've got your stories straight.