REVIEW: The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane (1976)

 

 

Based on a novel by Laird Koenig and directed by Nicolas Gessner, The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane is a strange film, and one that I've been meaning to watch for quite some time. Released in 1976 and starring a 14 year old Jodie Foster, the film is macabre, dark, unsettling and even more importantly, underrated. I rarely hear people talk about this film. Now maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places for discussions about it, but I haven't heard anyone really mention their feelings about it in the past.

 

The film follows the character of Rynn (Foster), a 13 year old girl who lives in a large secluded house in a small American seaside town. She keeps to herself, doesn't venture to town for groceries and doesn't go to school. Within a few months of living in the house, some of the residents of the town begin to find suspisions regarding the little girl....who...erm, lives down the lane.

 

 

There's the landlady, Mrs Hallett who rented the house to Rynn and her father initially. A rude, abrupt and obnoxious woman who pushes her way into the house and demands to see Rynn's father. We learn that her father is a poet who mustn't be disturbed while he is working. This becomes a running inconvenience to the visitors to the house who never seem to be able to talk to Rynn's father. The woman leaves under protest. We then meet a 36 year old Martin Sheen as the character Frank Hallett, the son of the landlady. His performance in the film stands out, perhaps mostly because the scenes with him are the most uncomfortable in the film. He introduces himself to Rynn with creepy glances and inappropriate touches of her hands before eventually leaving. The tone changes at this first meeting of the Frank character as you realise, as a viewer, that you wont be being treated to a normal run-of-the-mill thriller.

 

 

There is the local policeman named Miglioriti who lends a sense of warmth to the film that is needed in order to level things out and give some sense of safety, not only to the child lead but to the viewer also. He offers his safety net to Rynn and advises her to avoid Frank Hallett. This allows us knowledge that perhaps the Frank character has a past that isn't, shall we say, crystal clear.

 

Finally, we meet Mario, a young man who becomes Rynn's friend through his honesty and willingness to help her in the most bizarre and potentially destructive circumstances. Their relationship grows through a variety of scenarious that allow us to see more into the past of the Rynn character as well as her personality.

 

The story is a basic one in a way. We learn of the reasons why Rynn's father is never available to see visitors, we see the interactions between Rynn and the variety of suspisious visitors to her home, and we see how intelligent, ingenious and brilliant a young girl can be when desperation and survival sets in. We also learn that Rynn is very protective about anyone looking in the cellar. This reminded me alot of the Hitchcock movie "Rope" and I thought that the tense scenes regarding access to the cellar are some of the best in the movie.

 

Without giving too much away with this review, because I'm not sure how many people have seen this film and I wouldn't want to spoil things for anyone before they had the chance to see it for themselves. This is a very unusual and twisted little thriller. It borders on feeling like a horror movie at times and I guess it wouldn't be incorrect to even label it as such. The performance of Jodie Foster as the lead character, Rynn, is unbelievable considering her young age and allows insight into why she has been such a successful actress for such a long period of time. She plays the part to perfection, emotive and strinking in her delivery of minimalist dialogue, she carries the film on her fourteen year old back. Martin Sheen adds a macabre and sinister cloud to the movie that while at times feels forced is important to the progression of the movie as well as the characters in it.

 

I found myself extremely uncomfortable at times and can see why the film hasn't really seen wide re-releases in recent years. The subject matter is taboo and for good reason and there are scenes that don't make for an easy viewing time. Regardless of that, this is a film that shows such an impressive performance that it should really be seen.

 

It could be said that movies like Hard Candy exist because of this one, bringing an incredibly vile subject into the public eye. The movie has more layers than such films though, dealing with much more than the creepy predator and rather continuing while that sub-plot exists.

 

A score that adds to the tension and a setting that is small and authentic looking, The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane is a very hard film to rate, perhaps due to it's sensitive plot or because there is a vast mixture of levels of quality when it comes to the performances, with Martin Sheen appearing too cheesy for his disgusting character at times, and the character of Mario seeming tacked on to add something neat and tidy to the mix. Regardless though, I do urge you to see this film. It's on Netflix streaming in both the US and the UK and is only 93 minutes long.

 

This is the sort of movie that doesn't come along often, and that's a good thing. I don't mean that in a negative way, rather meaning that the power of such films exists because they are few and far between.

 

I wont even rate it this time. I thought it was a brilliantly atmospheric film with a tension seldom seen in most of modern cinemas thrillers. The performances are mostly good or great and there are enough twists in the plot to keep most entertained. Just prepare for moments of discomfort and leave the cup of tea until later.

Film Review - Fields Of November

 

Over a year ago I heard of a film called Fields of November. The synopsis sounded like something I would want to watch and I watched teaser trailers and clips online over the following months. I saw the film last week and I will begin this review by saying that I wasn't disappointed, something that can happen easily after wanting to watch something for a long period of time.

 

A woman wakes, her alarm harsh through a silent room, and her eyes show a deep sadness, cold and red. The story tells of this woman, Sarah, and her strict routine, a routine that helps her deal with the loss of her soon-to-be-husband twelve months earlier. A loss she has never come to terms with or even allowed herself to heal from.

 

The long, distant shots of Sarah, her face often contorting to grief driven tears, are daunting and beautiful. Sometimes the camera lingers and you feel like you're seeing things that perhaps you shouldn't be seeing. The emotional response of Sarah after speaking to another man, the guilt in her eyes and the heartache she feels due to the guilt. It's amazing and truly representative of the constantly-there ache and punch to the chest that comes with mourning. 

 

We see the story progress as Sarah meets a friend of her late soon-to-be-husband, a kind man with a lack of pity in his expression that puts Sarah at ease and makes her feel a connection with him. The tale then turns to one that delves into the healing process. We see Sarah, a character that is so sad and  conflicted to begin with, find a reason to smile again. It's in these moments, where Sarah, played subtly and wonderfully by Louise Flory, shows a long awaited sense of acceptance, that are really moving.

 

There is a scene in the film just after Sarah runs into the male character, calmly acted with a quiet charisma by Peter Castle, that she begins to find friendship with. She has shared a taxi with the man and dropped him off at his apartment before going back to her place, her routine changed and interrupted slightly. The panic and sadness in her face in this scene, where she sheds tears and looks at her watch fearfully, is one of the most effective scenes I have seen in a long time. It speaks louder than a million words could have about how lost this character has become and how stuck she has found herself after suffering the loss of someone she loved.

 

 

Chad Ritchie, the writer, director, editor and producer of the film has a wonderful way of letting the camera settle on his characters, naturally affording them a sense of realism and honesty seldom seen in film. The actors, also afforded the chance to share in the writing process, seem like they are not in front of a camera at all and merely going about their day as we watch them from some invisible speck of light in their life.

 

The score by Jason Solowsky is minimalist and subtle which works really well with the style of the film and the way in which it unfolds. Anything more and the dialogue and effective silences would be lost under it. So often I find that a score seems like it has been dumped into a film without any effort put into how it fits in, this doesn't happen here at all.

 

If I had to find fault with Fields of November I would struggle, there is so much to like and so much to admire about the film that I had a hard time considering any negative aspects. The one thing I would pick is that the film is just not long enough, and I say this because of the vast enjoyment I had with the time I spent with it. I would have loved to have peered further behind the curtain of these characters' lives and progression. It's a small gripe, mind you, and one that further expresses my fondness for the picture.

 

Written and performed in a way I won't soon forget, Fields of November is a piece of cinema that lingers over the suffering that people can go through after losing someone that they love. Set under the sky of New York City, a city bustling, crowded, bright and loud, we see a quiet and grey area beneath it all, like a still lake under a giant steel bridge.

 

Fields of November is available now and I urge you to pick a copy up. It's an experience you won't find elsewhere and one I won't forget in my lifetime.

 

Fields of November is available to buy here:

 

Fields on Amazon

 

Fields Signed From Retrocon Media

 



Horror Movie Review - American Mary (2012)

 

Jen and Sylvia Soska should be on the radar of most fans of the horror genre and it's progression as a genre with something unique and interesting to offer the current earth or cinema. Their previous, and debut, flick was Dead Hooker in a Trunk, which was written and directed by the spooksome twosome, who also appeared in main roles in the flick. It wasn't anything special as far as I'm concerned but it has a cult following and it did show the capabilities of these two genuinely interesting filmmakers as well as offering a glimpse at what they could do in a shoestring budget and no-name talent.

 

American Mary came onto my radar when I saw advertisements for it premiering at London's Frightfest horror weekend and I was extremely intrigued by the synopsis, the cast and the fact that the Soska sisters were behind the camera, holding the pen and, for a couple of minutes, in front of the lens once again. I didn't see it in theatres because it didn't, as far as I'm aware, get a cinema release anywhere in the UK, so I bought it on BluRay when it was released early this year.

 

American Mary stars Katherine Isabelle who you might know as "Ginger" from the Ginger Snaps flicks where she played a sensual werewolf who got a little bit bitey after the moon came out. She plays "Mary" in this, a horror film about body modification. Iiiiiiinteresting.

 

The whole body-mod scene is an interesting premise for a film and it's kind of suprising that we haven't really seen a horror film go full on with this concept before. Not like this anyway.

 

Mary is training to be a surgeon and putting in all the hours she can to get where she wants to be but she cant afford her student loans and she's stuggling to keep her head above water financially. She, through desperation, takes a stripper job in a seedy club. She interviews for the job but when she is dragged to help a worker of the club who has been beaten half-to-death she ends up on the radar of the body-mod community for her prescise black-market surgery. 

 

She is then invited to a house party by a couple of doctors at her hospital and when she arrives her drink is spiked and she suffers sexual abuse at the hands of her perverted colleagues. This sets up the descent into madness that befalls Mary following the attack.

 

The film sets the reasoning for Mary getting involved in body-mods really well, with desperation mixed with depression from what happened to her. She is approached by people who want extreme body modification for their own personal reasons and Mary becomes famous in the scene, with people travelling from across the world to have her work on them. This storyline flows at the side of a vengeance plot involving Mary, the men who attacked her at the house-party, and her boss at the nightclub who has become fond of her.

 

Katherine Isabelle is great doing "angry" and "viscious" and is believable as someone unhinged, a definate compliment to an actress who hasn't seen enough roles in horror in my view. The direction of the Soskas is clean and fluid and again cements them as ones to watch. They can't act though, I will say that, but I can ignore that when they're only in the film for a few seconds.

 

I liked that they cast people who were actually part of the mody-mod scene in the film, it added some authenticity to the whole thing and that was cool. I thought Tristan Risk was a standout as Beatress, along with Isabelle. They stole the film and gave some laughs along the way to break up the gore and the serious and dark scenes that existed.

 

I'm excited to see what the Soska Sisters do next, they have made a film here that should please alot of people who like horror, because it isn't just a music video with limbs being chopped off like alot of recent horror films, and it isn't about the usual. No zombies, vamps, ghosts or masked slashers to be found, although Mary does wear a surgical mask at times, so ignore the last one.

 

The acting, at times, left me a little "meh" and I would have liked backstory to some of the other characters, but the things I liked far outweighed the things I didn't. Definately one of the more original and fun horror movies I've seen in the last couple of years. See it!

 

7.5 genital mutilations out of 10.



Horror Review - The Collector (2009)

 

 

Okay, so it's about time I get back to my roots, I realised that I haven't really been reviewing horror movies on here and I don't really know why. I guess I just haven't felt the urge and I've been reviewing newer stuff for the most part and I don't get inspired to write reviews about many recent horror flicks.

 

The collector has inspired me to write one though, but I don't really know if that's a good thing or not. I'd say not. Here's why.

 

The Collector, co-written and directed by Marcus Dunstan, a guy who's previous screenwriting has come in the shape of sequels to Saw, is a movie presented in much the same way that those films were. I'd go deep into it's plot and the characters but that whole area is very shallow, so it would be like trying to deep fry some breaded fish in a dry frying pan. The story is basic and "samey", following a desperate thief as he attempts to steal from a family he's worked for and get's caught in a house filled with traps being set by a masked guy with a penchant for bear traps and fish hooks.

 

Okay, so I'm okay with the shallow plot and the fact that I couldn't give a shiny pile of dog crap about any of the characters. I can let that pass, because, as a horror fan I understand that looking for depth in many of our genres releases is like trying to find intelligent dialogue in a Wayans brothers film. So, I overlooked that and waited for a cool series of interesting and complex traps and tricks from the unnamed assassin who looked like a long lost member of Slipknot. This is where the film fell flat on it's face for me. The traps weren't interesting and you'd have to be a bloody idiot not to see a chandelier of machetes hanging over your head, wouldn't you? The gaping holes in the story as well as the fact that noone seems to react natuarally to the fact that there are plenty of chances to get out of the house and/or kick the shit out of Joey Jordison when he has his back turned.

 

There's a room of fish hooks that do little damage to the protagomist (who's a thief, nice). There's a room of green sludgy acid, like something from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which again does little harm to the guy stepping in it. Wow, nice traps antagonist-in-silly-mask, they're really doing their job. *insert confused face*

 

Speaking of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", Judge Doom is a much scarier villain than the lip-licking tosspot in this film, I'm sorry but there is nothing scary about a guy who's nine-hundred traps and weapons aren't doing more than leaving a couple of scratches on the fella who encounters them. So, okay, there's a plot going on with the family of the house too, who are being tortured by Corey Taylor in the basement, but that's boring and adds no sort of tension to the movie. The thief realises that there's a kid in the house and he tries to save her, which is fine, at least there's a little bit of reason to want the guy to escape now. This leads to a series of "Baby's Day Out" like close-encounters with sharp things.

 

I won't spoil the ending, the director will do that for you instead. This film left a bad taste in my mouth and confirmed my feelings on most of what comes through the gory train station of horror nowadays. It's all very usual and uninspired, and if it isn't a remake then it's the sort of tedious dumb-fuckery like this that might as well have been done a million times before. I'm not saying that I don't like any horror films that come out in the modern day. Spain, France and Asia have some swell little movies to be found, and I even liked a couple of recent remakes like "Evil Dead" but it's a shame that there is so little originality in a genre that can literally be as "out there" and bizarre as any other genre in the landscape of film. Come on, someone do something new!! It's surely not that hard.

 

I don't have many good points to make about this flick. It bored the pants off me, it made me sad that I'd chosen to waste time on it and it made me question the minds of the people who recommended it to me. Ha, I kid. Kind of.

 

Still, watch it if you fancy yourself a second-rate Saw knock-off, or prequel, or something. I don't know how it fits, or if it fits into the Saw franchise, I don't actually care either.

 

2 large bear traps soaked in viscera out of 10.

The Puffy Chair Review (2005) A Duplass Brothers Film.

 

Simply, to begin, I'll say that I am a Duplass Brothers fan. I like the style of their films and the everyman, modest and down-to-earth quality that each of their films possess. The Puffy Chair, starring brother Mark and directed by brother Jay is no different. Another wonderfully grey film with a soulful integrity and welcoming familiarity that immediately draws you in.

 

I saw this film much later than perhaps I should have, it was made in 2005 and I didn't see it until 2012, a few months ago. I had seen other Duplass-made pictures prior, enjoying each in different ways. Cyrus and Jeff, Who Lives at Home being the two that I most enjoyed and are perhaps the most well known of the films made by these talented indie filmmakers who had their start in short-film. It shows in their fairly short running times of their feature length flicks.

 

The Puffy Chair was made on a tiny $15,000 budget and it seldom shows because this isn't a film that really needs a budget, all it needs are a small amount of talented actors, a van, an open road...oh, yeah, and a puffy chair.

 

The film follows Mark Duplass's character Josh and his girlfriend Emily, played with subtlety by Katie Aselton, who is well-known in the Duplassverse. She does good here. Josh and Emily along with Josh's brother Rhett, plan to travek together from New York to Virginia, picking up a puffy chair along the way, that is identical to one that Josh's father had once owner. Josh plans to take the chair to his fathers house to give his dad for his birthday. An important thing for Josh to do, seen in his expressions and dialogue throughout the film. Rhett, the brother, is a hippy type who doesn't like conflict but also doesn't like to do anything to help anyone either. A fact that intrudes on the relationship of Josh and Emily at times during their road trip.

 

Mark Duplass plays the character of Josh with a mild anger at the world and while he at times seems cold he also backs it up with reason. He's likeable in his own way. His relationship with Emily is the basis for this film, she feels ignored and unsupported by Josh, and Josh just wants things to be fine without explanations needing to be given for things. Emily wants him to be more present in their partnership and she is deeply bothered that he doesn't appear interested in her worried regarding it. Rhett's character is perfect to bring a little insanity (or, at times, alot of insanity) to the mix. His "love for all things" is amusing on various occassions and scened, later in the film, are indeed "wackadoo".

 

The film takes on a documentary style of filming which works with the low budget but makes things seem very real and raw. This allows for improvisation to be done and it works really well, the lack of polish acts in the film's favour. The places that they visit throughout the movie appear real, lived in and used. It's a breath of fresh air to see places that are honest and at times dirty. Hollywood take note.

 

At times the dialogue gets a little mixed up and the Rhett character goes from being a realistic representation of someone who might be a little off kilter and generally happy to lay on the grass and stare at the sky while the world pays for him, but it takes turns that seem out of sink with the film and I would have preferred the subtlety to be constant.

 

The writing is top notch, the performances are excellent and the setting is perfect. It goes to show that all you need are a good script and a few people who can grab it and run with it.

 

It's on Netflix streaming now and I advise you to check it out.

 

8 puffy chairs out of 10.

The Lords Of Salem (2013) - A Rob Zombie Joint

 

Ok, so let's get this first thing out of the way before I start this review. I know that this is a controversial movie in the sense that it has strongly divided opinion and there's alot of negativity out there about it. The following review is my thoughts, pure and simple, on this film. SO, thanks for reading, let's get on with it shall we?

 

Rob Zombie is someone who I like, but I don't love his stuff for the mostpart. I really liked The Devils Rejects for what it was, a slice of nostalgic violent filmmaking with a hint of Americana and grindhouse. House of 1000 Corpses was mediocre but I watched it and accepted it as Rob's love letter to the horror genre, a genre he is obviously passionate about. The Halloween movies were just ok, not as bad as some people painted them to be in my view, but not too special either. When the trailers began surfacing for "The Lords of Salem" I was fairly uninterested and not really bothered about following the production of the film.

 

It was released at a small number of movie theatres in the US and Europe and hasn't done good business. It was released April 2013, last week, here in the UK on DVD. No BluRay release has been mentioned.

 

I was open minded walking in to this experience. I didn't expect the sea and the mountains but I didn't expect the dogshit on the pavement either, and you know what? I got neither, as I thought. But what I did get was something much more interesting, I got a film that was much more than House of 1000 Corpses, The Devils Rejects or the Halloween movies were. Here's why I say that...

 

The Lords of Salem, follows a character named Heidi Hawthorne, played by Sherri Moon Zombie, wifey of Rob. She is a late-night radio talk show host and she lives in Salem, MA. Sherri Moon Zombie, what a strange actress she is. Her performances have always been passable and at times funny and brash. Here though I was suprised at how varied her performance was. She mixed it up for the first time in her film career and that is something that should be praised. Her mixture of normal, run-of-the-mill girl, happy-go-lucky and spunky DJ and then anxious, confused and depressed victim is done with subtlety and a sense of clam I didn't expect from her. I liked her in this film because I believed her in this film. Something I have had trouble doing with any previous character in any previous Rob Zombie movie. They're all very cartoonish and silly without any real layer work being done with their characters. This changes with Heidi, she is a much more real and honest presense, at least for the mostpart.

 

The story itself isn't really too deep or hard to follow. It has a slow build which I liked alot and the tension mounts over the first half of the films 95 minutes. The setting where most of the story takes place is the apartment building in which Heidi lives. It's a typical New England building and works well as a place that is normal and cheery yet could plausably host something strange. The internal shots sometimes reminded me of "The Toolbox Murders" and "The Shining". Am I comparing this film to those films? No.

 

In the past Rob Zombie has taken to being very close-up with his directing. His camera was always in the face of the subject, sometimes even acting as the eyes of a vicitm as they ran away from a villainous character. The Lords of Salem does things differently and this is the main reason I will gladly heap praise on Rob Zombie for this film. He has stepped out of his comfort zone and done something truly different and unique. You dont think so? Look at the long, slow and tense shots on doors, expressions, walls, windows and other things. Rather than being "all up in there", Rob has chosen a more fly on the wall appreoach which adds tension and allows the viewer to see much more of the surroundings as the film unfolds.

 

The film follows Heidi as she takes a listen to a record that had been sent to her at the late-night radio station. The record plays like strings being abused, drums being battered and it's an incomfortable sound and one that works well for it's purpose in the film. I think it had a chance to be very clique wiht chanting or whispering voices and it didn't, it stuck to a very vivid banging and sounded like something that could really become uncomfortable if you listened to it for long enough. The music itself becomes a character in the film and allows you to see change come over Heidi as she listens to it, holding her head like it's forcing it's way inside her mind.

 

We see sporadic flashback sequences with naked witches and the familiar song playing over it and these are effective. The witches too remain subtle in their execution. We don't get over-the-top horror makeup or long warty noses. We get mixed age, mixed size women who are out for blood. It worked well in my view.

 

Now, this is not so much a horror film as it is an "arthouse" picture with satanic imagery, psychedelic sequences and eerie overtones of sinister goings-on. There's no "gore" so to speak, there aren't any jump scares which have become all too common in horror films these days and there aren't any big iconic horror film moments, or at least not obvious ones. Personally, I liked alot of the scenes in this, when Heidi first listens to the record it shows, just with reactions, how powerful it is and it set's up the rest of the film in just that moment. The scenes with the withes are well done and get better as it goes on.

 

I don't want to spoil things so I am avoiding telling of the ending of this film. The story speaks for itself, witches out for blood and Sherri Moon Zombie is the one they need to get where they need to be. It's not the most exciting or fresh premise, but the way it is presented is genuinely new and different and I liked that. I liked that alot.

 

This movie won't be for everyone. It obviously isnt as I've read some scathing reviews in the past month or so. Still, there are some people who will enjoy this and some who might even give it another chance after disliking it the first time. This is the sort of film where a fresh perspective will allow a viewer to see new things they had missed before.

 

The setting is nice, I've visited this area of New England and it's lovely and looks just like it did in the film. The inclusion of Ken Foree as the co-host on the radio show was nice. I like Ken Foree, he is a horror icon and though his part wasn't big it was still nice to see him on screen in something that fit him well. The part of Judy Geeson as Lacy Doyle, the apartment owner, is standout and she plays it perfectly. I was suprised to see her name seldom mentioned in reviews of this film, she did a brilliant job in her role. But I wont say why. The obscure sequences near to the end are just what they intend to be, but I couldn't help but want a little more narritive at those points, just a little more closure and explanation would have been nice. I liked having backstories but I thought it would have been good to have had more character development with the other characters in the film such as the radio co-hosts and the sisters of the apartment owner. I would have liked to have spent more time with them in order to get a better feel for them, but those are minor gripes in a film that for many was hopelessly crap. For me though, it was intriguing and enjoyable. Especially the first half which slowly built the story in a way I always enjoy and have since I first saw "The Legend Of Hell House".

 

See this for yourself because no word from me or anyone else will really help. You might hate it with passion or love it, or like me you might enjoy the experience and respect the decision of the film maker to do something truly different for a change.

 

Not for everyone, but really...what is?

 

7 our of 10 (for now)

 

 

Movie Review Time: Tower Block (2012)

 

The writer of this film also wrote a couple of other cult british horror comedies, Cockneys Vs Zombies and Severance. His name is James Moran, that's all I really know. His name and two films he's also written the screenplay to.

 

I liked Severance I guess, though I can't really enjoy Danny Dyer in any way whatsoever, but he is ignorable if you try hard enough. Tower Block was released in 2012 and got a decent enough nation wide cinema release, though it was only on for a couple of weeks. It looked decent enough but there was too much to see at that point so I waited for the DVD release instead. Well, months on and one BluRay purchase later and I sat down on my couch, coffee in hand, to watch this small budgeted British thriller. Here are my modest thoughts.

 

The movie begins with a look at the various characters that exist in a pending-destruction tower block in East London. It also shows a young man being beaten to death by two masked thugs. The police try to get some information from the people in the tower block about the attack that happened in the halls of their residence. None of them would speak. None of them had any information, and so the thugs went free and the residents carried on with their lives, in a run-down block of flats where only the top floor is lived in. The remainder of the block has been emptied and re-homed. So, thats where the tale begins.

 

Sheridan Smith is the headliner in the movie. Fans of UK sitcoms like The Royle Family, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Gavin & Stacey will know her well. She plays a character called Becky who saw the attack on the boy happen and attempted to save him, but she was beaten up too and didnt have an information for the police. She is the "good" person in the mix, and the film tends to focus on here mostly, which is a good idea because she is likeable and familiar with no real reason to dislike her.

 

I dont know any of the other performers in the film, except for a guy from Gavin & Stacey who plays an alcoholic loner named Paul. The other main character is called Kurtis, a thug-wannabe Derby-voiced drug dealer who has spent years theratening the people of the block and making them pay him money with a promise that if they do he wont attack them and wreck their homes. Nice. So we are introduced to this extremely annoying chap early on. His performance as the skinny little prick chav is well done but the type is done so often in british films that it's getting old and annoying now. I understand that people like this exist, sadly, but it seems that alot of urban films based in Britain have this chracter in them. I know people like this exist, especially in the more downtrodden areas of the country, but it is so typical and over-the-top that it seems too obvious now. Am I supposed to eventually like these one-dimensional nasty characters? Really? I don't.

 

So, months later and the residents of the top floor of the block are going about their lives as usual. An older couple living normally, a couple of little thuggy lads pretending to be "gangsta", a single mother who yells at her kids constantly, a family with a son who plays Battlefield 3, alot. And so on.

 

Suddenly, as the people are in their flats going about their lives, bullets fly through their windows and kill certain people. We see a sniper rifle reloading and aimed at the tower block. The residents all run into the halls, freaking out. They're being picked off and they don't know why.

 

I'll stop there. Thats where the story begins and I wont spoil it. It tells the story of a group of people trying to escape from a sniper aimed at their tower block who has set traps around the building. It's about the way the characters interact as well as why they are being terrorised in such a manner.

 

It's a fun premise and the performances are mostly good. Some are passable but none are actually bad, which I didn't expect. I found the character of Kurtis to be too irritating and obnoxious to tolerate and at times it made me grit my teeth. It was a little too much at times. I enjoyed the film, basically and honestly, it was fun and didn't drag during it's 90+ minutes. My main issue is that there are gaping inconsistancies and plot holes the size of a stella artois factory. It is in these issues that the film let me down. They were obvious plot holes that I cannot fathom how someone could miss. I wonder if the director was even that bothered towards the end. It is one of those films that gives too much away too soon and ends in a very unsatisfying way. Still, the actors did a good job with the mediocre script, the story, or 50% of it, was interesting and at times tense and it was a decent urban brit-thriller of which the country doesn't produce many.

 

I would recommend it to anyone who might like the idea of survival thrillers but the chracter models are dated and the story falls short on many occassions. Still, not all bad and worth a watch.

 

SCORE - 5 pints of cider out of 10.