Terror Eyes AKA Night School (1981)

Back in the early 1980’s the UK was rocked by fear; fear that the birth of the home video recorder was going to corrupt us all. In came the DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions) to spare us all. In the process of doing so a list of 72 movies was gathered together are referred to even to this day as Video Nasties. Terror Eyes AKA Night School made the list but was later removed from the other prosecuted movies.

Terror Eyes (a play on words) surrounds a school where one of the tutors has a tendency to be a little over familiar with his female students. While he wrestles with his past affairs, a killer is making their way round the neighbourhood dispatching local women by separating their heads from their bodies.

An awful lot of movies on the Video Nasties list do raise questions about the mentality of those making viewing decisions on, but in fairness I believe they had it pretty much right here. While aspects of the movie do seem incredibly tame by today’s standards, there is a significant feeling of menace in this movie that could have the potential to give more than a few scares. There is also a reasonably high body count, and a fair amount of prolonged menace.

I fall on the unusual side of reviewers in respect of this movie in that compared to a lot of other movies of the era I feel (when you can see it, I’ll explain later) that this is a superior offering for an American based movie. I will however concur that I do agree with 90% of other reviewers that the performance of a then unknown Rachel Ward is just diabolical, hard to believe that just two years later she would star in a television show that would eclipse most actresses careers at that time, and turn out a performance that would move the world to tears, this was of course the role of Megan in The Thorn Birds.

The film is technically missing from release across the world, the only way you are likely to see it is to come by an old (and I mean old) video cassette, or to scour the lesser known movie channels across the globe. Sadly absolutely no effort has been given to make the available prints of the movie clear, as a result the movie is incredibly hard to watch. Much of the movie is shot at night, and the lack of definition of the edges in the movie means that the darkness tends to invade more of the picture than you might like. In particular one scene in which Ward’s character is being perused you cannot see who is chasing her, not once.

The movies killings (what you can see of them) are fairly brutal; the movies score well crafted to accompany the murders, giving that touch of menace well in advance and after the killings. There are some really good moments in the film, such as when the diner owner slowly comes to discover what has happened to his waitress, there are so many false starts to this scene that when he finally makes the discovery you feel almost like your ready to explode. While at the time it did infuriate me, thinking back on the scene it’s actually a really clever plot device to build the suspense.

Rather interestingly about the movie as well as having an unexpected leading actress, you also had a rather unexpected director. Ken Hughes may not be a director that automatically flicks on light bulbs in your mind, but his previous movies included Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and James Bond spoof Casino Royale, both movies a million miles away from a video nasty slasher movie. Probably not much of a surprise but after the wrap he received from making this movie, he never worked in the movie industry again.

As I said there are lots of flaws with the movie, but there are also lots of good points too. It’s a predictable movie, but also one notch above similar movies of the time. Despite what you might hear about Terror Eyes, trust me this is one movie you need to check out for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

And Soon The Darkness (2010)

As dreary as 1970’s And Soon The Darkness’ may have been, one thing you cannot escape is the ability it has to haunt you. It’s a familiar tale of tourists on holiday becoming separated, one of which ends up falling foul of something unpleasant. As human beings missing person’s cases trouble us, so the movie did play heavily on the minds of anyone who saw it. Penned by the creator of the Professionals Brian Clemens, and the inventor of Doctor Who’s Daleks, Terry Nation. Despite its emotional draw, and its uncharacteristic edginess for a British movie of that time, the film felt incredibly hollow, lots of pacing about and lack of substance, so it seems that the movie was perfect for a remake.

Continuing their stream of remakes Anchor Bay Films recent movie takes the story from the French countryside (which back in 1970 seemed alien and a million miles away) to Argentina. The story follows Stephanie (Amber Heard) and Ellie (Odette Yustman) as American tourists preparing to end their cycling holiday in the country. Just one more night separates them from returning to normality, but a night on the town and a rather over enthusiastic Romeo causes them to oversleep and miss their connecting bus. After an argument between the two of them breaks out over sunbathing, Stephanie heads off leaving her friend in a remote location, but when Ellie fails to catch up Stephanie returns to where she last saw Ellie only to find she is gone. While the local police try to convince her that Ellie has just gone off with others for the day, Stephanie is adamant something has happened to Ellie, and the hundreds of missing person’s posters around the town do little to dispel her concerns.

This 2010 remake starts with a lot of promise, there is much more bonding between the two girls, the relationship far stronger than in the original. Add to this we have a much more adapted story, you’re allowed to like Ellie before she disappears, or not if you’re that way inclined. For at least half the movie this feels like a far better product, so much more finished than the original but sadly that is where the improvements end.

No sooner has Ellie disappeared and you can feel the weaknesses’ in the movie. One minute you have this cast iron strong storyline, the next you get all these loose ends that are never ever summed up. Elation turns to disappointment as the movie just continues down a darker path than the previous movie. Whole new plotlines are created but never explained, and as the movie draws to a close you have considerably more questions than answers.

Amber Heard does a reasonable job of keeping most of her clothes on for once, and as leading actress (and Executive Producer) she does a good job of making a like-able heroin, she literally fills the boots of the part she is portraying, and that in any movie is not always an easy task. Yustman also performs well, realistic in her behaviour, endearing as the movies principal victim. The final addition of the principal cast is Karl Urban who acts well, with a hollow character that is up until his final appearance in the movie, when acting school skills seem to have failed him. Indeed of all the cast there are no missing links, these are all good performers, and as a result the movies weaknesses’ certainly cannot land at the door of any of the performers. The direction is also very capable indeed.

No the fault is in the scripting, and that point alone; having not been privy to the original treatment for the 1970 movie, and to be fair not that enamoured by either film to hunt it out, I cannot tell you if either version of the movie is more to the authors vision. What I can say is that a reasonable attempt at correcting failure is dashed here, so many cliché additions, so many open scenarios just waiting for a story to fill them.

After the end of a lengthy action sequence you feel relived, relived that the story is over and that you can at last move on to something far more promising.

While a better version of the movie as a whole, the story still lacks much and on this basis I’d actually rate it lower than the original, because at least the original feature was consistent.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010)

Back in 1987 when I was a little “wet behind the ears” I wanted to be Bud Fox, he was the hero of Wall Street, a few years later and of course I realised that the real money laid at the door of Wall Street’s villain Gordon Gekko, for over 20 years Wall Street has held a unique place in the movie industry, but late in 2009 came the news we all either wanted or dreaded, Wall Street was getting a sequel.

Image via Wikipedia

Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) is a young upcoming Wall Street trader, a loyal and conscientious worker who dreams of bigger and better things. The protégé of bank founder Louis Zaber (Frank Langella) Moore has a very bright future. From nowhere the shares of Zaber & Zaber fall through the flew, and Louis struggles to save the bank from the clutches of Bretton James (Josh Brolin), when a last ditch attempt fails Louis commits suicide, leaving the future of thousands of staff in jeopardy, and his protégé scarred from the events that ran up to his death. Moore realises where the fault lies, and desperately wants revenge, the only way he can think of achieving the task is under the mentorship of one time king of Wall Street Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), this relationship must however remain secret, for Moore and Gordon are connected in more than one way, Moore is dating Gekko’s daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan), and she wants nothing to do with her estranged father.

Before I begin I need to point out that despite some reviews Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is not a bad film, as a sequel to what in my opinion is one of the best movies of the 80’s however this is cut from a much different cloth. It’s a confusing affair watching Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, because despite the return of its star Douglas, cameo performances from Charlie Sheen reprising his role of Bud Fox, and a demented estate agent played by Sylvia Miles; and of course its director Oliver Stone, this movie feels like an imitator and a poor one at that. As the story begins to slowly unravel you cannot help but ask if this is a parody of a great classic, and this is a problem that haunts the entire movie. To engage in this movie you really need to almost erase all memories of 1987’s Wall Street, if you can manage that your fighting a battle you can win, and then, and only then will you be able to embrace the story for what it is.

I’d find it difficult to believe that anyone without prior experience of the stock exchange or high intelligence, would honestly be able to say they got all the aspects of the original Wall Street, no such chance here however the story level and the detail has been dumbed down to a level that anyone can take onboard. Sadly this also takes away some of the charm, it was god to revisit Wall Street and discover that you had figured out new aspects of the story, herein lies a problem, this is a one off movie, not something that will serve you well by repeat viewings, this is a one outing adventure.

For those that have found director Oliver Stone a little hard to tolerate over recent years, you really will find it difficult to feel his trademark on the movie. The grittiness is gone, as is the bitter agenda he seems to have been carrying out over his work, this is a much more clean and polished piece.

Douglas does feel a little out of place in the movie, he should be feeling at home, but this is a much different Gordon Gekko to the one we left behind 23 years ago; he bumbles about unrecognisable as Gekko, weaker less concerned for his image. But this is more than just character change, this feels an awful lot like either Douglas never wanted to return to the role, or budget demanded his return. One time Hollywood heavyweight, in recent years Douglas has been on a sliding slope, and you do tend to feel his performance here (up until the final quarter) is nothing more than an overblown cameo role.

Good screenwriting keeps the story compelling, as does the links with the past (I appreciate a slight contradiction from earlier comments), you wait patiently for the curve-balls to come, you also enjoy the slow unfolding storyline, the character development, the small victories, and the major defeats.

LeBeouf of course shines, he is proving to be a consistently like-able actor , and is joined by Doctor Who actress Carey Mulligan as the female lead, Mulligan is becoming a favourite in the key Hollywood players especially in light of her performance in the acclaimed “An Education”. While Brolin delivers a very capable performance as the arch villain of the piece, almost stealing the role that Douglas played in the original. The reuniting of Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas is an unpleasant addition to the movie, lots of nauseous “Blue Horseshoe loves Annacott Steel” and “Blue Star” references that come out of the actor’s mouth like a thick tarry vomit.

Music wise Stone obviously figured that the Talking Heads tracks worked well in the original movie, and leans heavily on the bands lead singer to deliver the vocal feel to the movie, 23 years on however and it does not work so well, despite the inclusion of the legendary return track from the original.

It’s a sad fact of life that you’ll find it impossible to erase the past, and if you loved the original, you’re not going to be happy here. This is something far different to the original, and you cannot shake that off no matter how hard you try.

City of The Living Dead Aka The Gates of Hell (1980)

In rural Dunwich Father Thomas has made a decision, walking slowly through his graveyard he stops to ponder his thoughts. Then without further thought he throws a rope over the branch of a tree and hangs himself. No sooner has he hung himself than the ground begins to move near his feet.

In New York a séance is going terribly wrong, and for one of the guests it’s a very final gathering. At the crucial point of the séance Mary dies. Reporter Peter Ball is soon on the case and following up on his enquiries he heads to the burial site of Mary, where he rather surprisingly finds her very much alive and lying in a shallow grave.

The death of Father Thomas has opened the gates of Hell, now its down to Mary and Peter to close them.

I first saw City Of The Living Dead at the start of the 1990’s, a decade after it had been banned in the UK. The film, a movie made by Lucio Fulci was one of five of the director’s movies to be banned in the UK in that time period. In the 1990’s after a period of unavailability in the UK suddenly this and three other Fulci movies became available albeit in an edited format. Of all the movies this was the least edited, and at the time to be fair I believed it to be the weakest of the four available movies. The first of Fulci’s movies I had seen was The House By The Cemetery, the next was Zombie Flesh Eaters (Zombi 2), the third The Beyond; these movies all had something about them, a scene that was so shocking it forced you to pay attention. By the time I had got round to watching City Of The Living Dead all those shocks had sunk in, and there was nothing new here except that is for a rather unpleasant vomiting scene. Having glanced on a number of sites on the Internet I have noted that a lot of viewers often saw this movie later on, the more talked about features being more a priority. Why am I telling you this? The reason I feel is an important one, this while still being a powerful movie is one of the films of the pivotal point of Fulci’s career that seems to get the worst press or reviews, I cannot help but think order of play is an important factor. Watching the film for about the sixth time, and with a fresh vision (and a slightly vague memory), I can’t help but think in reflection that this is one of the better movies of that time period.

I do need to backtrack slightly and say that while I believe this to be one of the better movies of that period, I do not understand some aspects of the movie. The acting has certainly moved down a notch, some of the actions seem a little unexplained, and the movies ending that can be interpreted a number of ways I guess, has had people questioning it for years, and despite the claims of some, I do not believe we will ever truly know the answer.

Moving on to the good stuff, one of the key reasons I like City Of The Living Dead is due to the zombies themselves, you get a zombie film and it’s a typical bloodbath some zombies move fast others slow, but generally there are lots of them. Here you have a collection of lone zombies all attacking victims on a solo basis, you only see a congregation of zombies in the final minutes. The zombies here have no reason to be either fast or slow moving, as it seems they literally teleport from destination to destination, you may think that’s silly, but how much more silly is it than the prospect of brain eating zombies in the first place? Fulci’s zombies have generally been on some sort of journey, we have had decayed zombies, the recently dead zombies, here the zombies are a lot of the time looking a little burned, with the odd one that is not too different to how they looked before death, but this condition varies from zombie to zombie.

The story itself is a little shaky granted, however it manages to link together a variety of locations and thanks to a great music score, the suspense builds from the moment the earth starts moving beneath Father Thomas’s feet. The characters are narrowed down fairly quickly and you realise you have your final four, who are dispatched in an unexpected order which keeps that aspect of the story nice and fresh. The inclusion of Bob (Giovanni Lombardo Radice) is pretty much there just to add to the body count, and certainly gets the drill rather nicely.

On a gore factor, well this is pretty good; lots of decomposing bodies scattered around, a new Fulci favourite occurs in brain scrunching, as nearly all of the characters that die and up with a zombie grabbing a characters head from the rear and squeezing so tight that a clump of skull and brain come away in their hand, this is a quite heavily used means of death in the movie.

The performances are variable Catriona MacColl performs well as ever, a good solid leading lady, the late Christopher George seems a little out of his depth at times. Carlo De Mejo almost steps into the leading male role as George struggles to keep the light on his performance. Janet Agren and future director Michele Soavi both have reasonable supporting roles.

City Of The Living Dead has some issues, it also has some really big plus points too, it’s a weaker entry in the Fulci series only if you watch them out of date order, if you’re a first time viewer however watch Fulci’s Zombie series in the correct order (Zombie Flesh Eaters, City Of The Living Dead, The Beyond, The House By The Cemetery) and you’ll find this is part of the journey that leads to the pinnacle of Fulci’s career The Beyond.

There are dozens of releases around the world of the movie on DVD and Blu-Ray, the recent release from Arrow as part of their cult movie collection is one of the best. As well as a crisp and clean print the disc is absolutely loaded to the hilt with special features. Catriona MacColl, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Carlo De Majo, Antonella Fulci, Dardano Sacchetti all feature in exclusive interviews, there are a couple of commentary tracks one of which features MacColl (always great value), as well as trailers. The case has some great artwork, and there is a highly informative booklet too.

The Guardian (1990)

As the 80’s made way for the 90’s the new decade spawned movies about abuse of trust, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, and Deceived being prime examples. From absolutely nowhere came The Guardian a movie directed by William Freidkin the man that bought us The Exorcist. Teaming up with Stephen Volk (Ghostwatch, Gothic) as writer, Friedkin again gives us a no nonsense smack in the face horror movie, with a savage edge.

Moving into their dream home Kate and Phil soon have a new visitor on the way, a guest that will be staying for more than a few days. The pregnancy goes by quickly and without issue, the birth speedy; but finances mean that Kate will soon have to return to work in order to keep their dream home. Selecting a nanny for their child is easy, despite all the nanny’s they see Arlene is head and shoulders above all others, but her sudden death means they turn to second option Camilla (Jenny Seagrove). Camilla tends to baby Jake’s needs well, but despite her polished outlook, she hides something secret, something deadly.

Anyone expecting something along the lines of The Exorcist is surely to be disappointed with The Guardian; The Exorcist is a dark and dirty horror movie, its delivery is rough and sometimes incoherent, its very real, lots of normal conversation and acting that seems like you’ve just walked in on a friends conversation. The Guardian is a much more polished piece of work, far more Hollywood than cutting edge; it’s almost TV quality style acting, with a level of cleanliness and an unlived feel about it. In fact you’d need telling to take a double take, and maybe to be old twice in order to believe that this is the work of the same director, both movies being light years apart. This being said The Guardian is pretty good on a completely different level.

For actress Jenny Seagrove this must have been a dream job, the actress repeatedly pigeonholed into the same sort of acting roles, the servant, the downtrodden, and the woman of substance. Now she had the real power an opportunity to shine, and to deliver a pleasant but terrifying role. Sadly despite her great performance here, the movie was little seen and her chance at fame in America dashed.

The character of Camilla (Seagrove) is far more than just a normal woman with a nasty side; she is a creature of some sort, connected closely to a tree. Her aim is to collect babies before they reach the four-month stage, and effectively sacrifice them to a tree. Anything that tries to stop this is met with ultimate resistance.

When you sit someone down in an almost TV movie style environment and chuck in the kitchen sink when it is completely unexpected you have to take a deep breath. The first thirty minutes of watching The Guardian and you think you’re seeing a movie that will play out in a certain way. Around the forty minute mark suddenly you are thrown this enormous curve-ball, I was completely taken aback by a scene involving Camilla and three thugs, who are disposed of in a fairly graphic manner, the deaths themselves are not unexpected, it’s the sheer brutality that it.

I never read Stephen Volk’s original treatment of the story, but I have to say it does seem that the film is a little hollow in a number of places, it’s not a well thrown together story, it works, but its far from rocket science, it simply just is what it is, a bit of mindless horror to pass the time, enjoyable in a lot of ways; but you’ll not be worrying about it after it ends.

Friedkin has made a number of films that have a cutting edge style about them, this does not by any means equal previous work, nor does it redesign the wheel, but it is an unexpected pleasure to watch, and a movie you’ll remember.