Showing posts with label paranormal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paranormal. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Two Reviews: Unexplained Explained; Haunted Changi

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2011
Images from the Internet


The reason for these two films to be reviewed in this blog together is that they both purport to be about the making of a documentary regarding ghosts.

Unexplained Explained: Ghostly Paranormal Actvity
Directed by Nick Padley and Nigel Albermaniche
World Wide Multi Media
75 minutes, 2011
MVDvisual.com

Presented as a British television shot-on-video documentary, producer Paul Wookey of the Brit program[me] Quizworld, teems up with professional psychic Diane Howe, who has appeared on some shows like Psychic Interactive. She’s there as the ghost “attractor,” as you will, like the main characters from Medium or Ghost Whisperer.

They set off into the bucolic U.K. countryside to the town of Pendle, in Yorkshire Dales. There they reach their destination, an old pub called The Anchor, which is supposedly haunted by multiple spirits.

I’m not sure if the owners of the pub are looking to this as a serious documentary about the spirit world or as a chance to get some free publicity (or both), but they appear to be in earnest as the camera follows everyone as they walk through the darker places in the joint, such as a cellar that’s partially filled with water, or another room filled with tipped-over casks of booze (that seem to be quite old). “Oh, I have an odd feeling about this room!” someone says once in a while. As with most psychic readings, which drives me crazy (this includes you, Sylvia Brown – who is not on this DVD), there is no way to prove what they are saying, and no indication of research to verify. When she (or any psychic) describes a spirit, it could be an albino dwarf with three heads, but there is no way to substantiate it. I’m not saying people do not have the gift, but I’d like to see some confirmation before I go “wow! S/he nailed it!”

A centerpiece of the DVD is a sort of Ouija board set-up with a group sitting around an upside down glass which they all touch with a finger, and the glass goes round and round and round. I’d have been more impressed if the glass shattered (but not to the point where anyone is hurt, of course) or moved on its own, rather than just when touched. Too easily faked.

Usually, by this time I’d be getting the willies (yes, I have a touch of phasmaaphobia in real life, since I have had at least one pretty-sure experience), but not even a hair on the scruff of me neck raised. The pace is glacial, and the events are minimal. The camera is always in tight so you can’t see much of the surroundings, which also raises suspicions to me of being contrived through ocular claustrophobia, but that doesn’t ring true either.

Truthfully, part of the issue for me is everyone has somewhat thick accents (especially Howe, who mumbles often), and there is a throbbing dissonant musical tone that is played over the readings, making it even harder to understand what Howe is saying about whatever it is she is “reading” of the psychic world. A choice of turning on captions would have been a nice addition.

The revelations about one or more of the spirits during the séance is creepy to say the least, and at the end of the program, there are written updates title cards that don’t really say anything substantial (asking around if someone knows something about the events that allegedly happened between a 50 year period over a hundred years before; good luck with that). One of the cards even goes to state, “Opinions are divided regarding the plausibility of their findings.” Well, if even the show can’t stand by their own work, why should the viewer?

Usually, I like stuff like this, but this particular exercise left me kinda cold, and not the fun, unexplained-icy-spot-in-the-corner kind. Lastly, note that this is a DVR, with no extras whatsoever. In all, I found it a bit disappointing. The DVD box images are scarier than this film, quite honestly.





Haunted Changi
Directed by Tony Kern
Mythopolis Pictures / Seminal Films
81 minutes, 2010
Seminalfilms.com

Hauntedchangi.com
MVDvisual.com
The premise of this film is clearly stated on the box: In January 2010, a group of filmmakers began exploring old Changi Hospital in Singapore…with terrifying and tragic results. The film contains the crew’s original footage.

Apparently, The Blair Witch Project did more than scare most people, it created a whole new industry of the “found footage” films industry, spurring the likes of Cloverfield and [Rec] (though, to be fair, this style did exist before, with films like the classic 1980 Cannibal Holocaust).

So, supposedly, This group of four (well, actually five, but one of the women is not listed in any credits) decides to go check out Old Changi (pronounced Chang-ee) Hospital, a real place that is now abandoned and graffiti-riddled, but after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, was locally known as a location for numerous Japanese beheadings (hence the DVD cover image) of prisoners and intellectuals that was said to be in the five figures. This led OCH being rumored to be highly haunted.

We watch as they prepare to set out to the hospital on an official permission of two days (one daylight, one evening), though they apparently are there more often than that. We watch early on as they prepare the credits to their “film,” which sets up the expository story about the Japanese invasion at the beginning of Dubya-Dubya Deuce, using film footage from an early U.S. television documentary. We also see what is probably real person-on-the-street footage of people discussing their own opinions and experiences dealing with hauntings at Old Changi. Nice mix-up of real and…maybe…

The film is obviously shot in Singapore, but is mostly in English, with some occasional Chinese thrown in; however, thanks to the heavy accents and colloquialisms, as you can hear in the trailer below, I found it easier with the captions turned on.

I will admit that this is one creepy film for the most part. I kept expecting, as one might, that at any second something was going to jump out into the camera range, like those ferstunkiner videos that get RE’d and FWD’d around on emails where they show some peaceful, idyllic scene, and at the end, something jumps out and screams (gets me every time, dammit!). But, of course, the real joy is of anticipation, much like never actually seeing the Blair Witch. There is an occasional glimpse of something that if you turn away for a second you can miss. I know I slo-mo’d the rewind more than once to make sure I saw that I thought I saw. That’s a good sign.

Yeah, as you’re walking along the real hallways of OCH seeing only what the camera is seeing in “real time” (and the occasional look back in an editing bay), this film is very effective in the creepy mode. I know I was squirming more than once thinking, “Okay, when are they gonna go boo?!?!” The last two-thirds are especially creepy in that way, though a run through the sub-basement corridors of the hospital in the dark toward the end was claustrophobic at best, expectant at its worst (meaning most scary). Yes, there are a couple of really good shocks and a creepy playback that are especially effective. The viewer definitely wants to be paying attention, despite the use of more anticipation than actual scare. Plus, the use of night-vision green is very effectively used here.

Amusingly, on the IMDB, there are two versions listed of the same film, the first as a fiction, and the second as a documentary with the names of the cast changed ever-so-slightly from their real ones to their characters..

As I said above, there are five people who are the focus of the film, though one woman is not mentioned in either listing. Curious. Perhaps she’s the real ghost? Anyway, the film is listed on one as being directed by Andrew Lau (played by Andrew Lua; see how that works?). He’s the hardest to understand among the filmmakers, and has the most dialog. Go figure. The sound guy is Farid Azlam (Faridino Assalam), who is seen more in the first half. The photographer is Audi Khalis (Audi Khalid), and the producer (and most convincing actor) is Sheena Chung (Sheena Chan). It feels like much of the dialog is spontaneous which either means it’s better acted than I realize, or they are good at improv.

There are a couple of tweaking points that make me ponder… First and foremost, although they don’t show much of the supernatural world, it still felt like a bit much. I won’t go into detail and ruin it, but note that this question may be a spoiler, so skip ahead: why is one of the ghosts a Japanese soldier. I thought the whole point was that the Japanese killed locals, Chinese, and British (who were defending the island), so shouldn’t the ghosts be primarily them?

There are some inspired extras here. First, there is the full 20 minute or so documentary about the fall of Singapore from which the clips at the beginning of the film are taken. There is also a BlogSpot page for the “crew” which is hard to read (it’s also available on the film’s website), and three chapters of a book by one of the crew (not well written).

Anyway, this is a pretty effective film and can get real creepy at times. Don’t watch it before bedtime.

These reviews were previously published HERE.



Saturday, September 10, 2016

Review: The Purging Hour

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2016
Images from the Internet


The Purging Hour (aka Home Video)
Directed by Emmanuel Giorgio Sandoval
Vicious Apple Productions / Ruthless Films / MVD Visual
80 minutes, 2015 / 2016

Naming a film to jump on the success of another that is unrelated is hardly new, especially since the 1980s. Even recently, how many have started with A Haunting in…? It’s no real stretch to guess the theme implied here, or where the name comes from. Actually, if the film holds up, I don’t care what it’s called. But we shall see, eh wot?

In retrospect, despite the name, they seem to try and go a bit more for the style of Paranormal Activity (2007) in that it takes until the last 20 minutes for anything to be of interest, but also keep with the incessant handheld found footage of The Blair Witch Project (1999). It seems like any time the wording at the beginning starts with something like “They were never seen again,” I have found it’s better to… run away!!!

We meet an attractive Latina family who have moved to some mountain resort town in California. This is their first day there and everything is already unpacked and pretty tidy (has anybody on this film ever moved before?). There is the handsome and muscular father, Bruce (Steve Jacques) and beautiful mother (Sophia Louisa), their typically emotional beautiful teenage daughter, Kacie (Alana Chester) and her handsome and model-type boyfriend Mark (Tomas Decurgez) who is there to help, and a young teen son Manny (David Mendoza).

Using a single handheld camera, they tape each other incessantly through the most mundane stuff (cooking burgers on the grill, sitting around the kitchen, and like that). This includes some personal conversations forwhich no one in their right mind would have a camera on (or remain married for long in real life), making some of the characters kind of unlikeable (especially Bruce), which I am going to assume was not the intention of the writers or director.

Intercut in the first two-thirds of the film are interviews with friends, family, and locals, including the sheriff and mayor of this town. Unlike Blair Witch however, these people definitely are actors, not just local non-actors ad libbing. Some are convinced that the family was killed by one of its members, others that it was some outsider (hence the hinting of the movie’s title), and those that are sure it’s something supernatural (conspiracy theorist types).

I’ve seen lots of these kinds of films before, so I found myself looking at backgrounds as much as the characters, such as “Is there something on that hillside?” or “Is that door handle about to turn?” or “Is there a reflection in that mirror?” But no, most of it is just the family being a family, having family conversations (and arguments), living family lives. And yet, there is very little exposition about the characters. You get some idea of their nature, but not the motivation behind it. For example, pretty-boy boyfriend says “I like to draw so maybe I’ll be an architect.” Hunh? Sadly, I know people like that, but that doesn’t explain why he’s so aimless (commentary on his generation, perhaps?). So essentially, the first hour is like watching someone else’s home movies. Wooo-hoooooo.

My annoyance, however, is with the little things that make no sense. Usually I can avoid a couple of anachronisms or errors, but these seem to be a confusion that stands out perhaps because of the slow nature of the film, which makes it stand out more. For example, there is a blackout in the house (all lighting used is off the camera), and yet in the kitchen you can see the blue, electric digital clock on the fridge. Another is the mention that this happened “several years” ago, and yet the key to the car is one of those recent square ones that pop out like a switchblade, and cell phones are spoken of once though never seen; attractive teenage daughter without a cell phone every five minutes? Wow. And does this outage affect any of the other surrounding houses, which don’t really seem that far away. If the car won’t start, run to one of the houses if their lights are on… or even if they’re not.

The one that confuses me the most is that the footage starts with the usually VHS kind of PLAY wording-on-blue-screen and there is a lot of video-style stereotypical “noise” of lines and fading in and out, and the like; however, it’s clearly a camera not a camcorder, and with all the other modern extemporania, such as the aforementioned car keys, it just doesn’t make sense.

I totally respect that Sandoval did a “Robert Rodriguez” and used a largely Latino cast, and mostly they are good at what they do, but considering there are three writers and I’m sure tons of ad libs, there really is no plot, nor narrative, which is what brings this release to a standstill from the get-go. A couple of good bloody scenes and a nice touch and the end, however, aren’t enough to save this, I’m truly sad to say.

If you look at my history of reviewing, I champion indie filmmaking (hell, it’s in the title), but I am also honest (well, what is truthful to me). That being said, Sandoval was about 23 when he made this film. Yeah, he won a district award at high school for a short he directed, so perhaps there is promise there. If perchance he reads this, I am hoping he takes this as sincere criticism, not snarkiness. Let’s consider this film an exercise, and hope that he learns the techniques he needs to make the next one a killer.



Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Review: Abandoned Dead

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2016
Images from the Internet
Abandoned Dead
Written and directed by Mark W. Curran
Nightwatcher Films / Pacific World Pictures / Pocket Studios / MVD VIsual
77 minutes, 2015 / 2017
www.abandoned-dead.com
www.mvdvisual.com   

Californian rent-a-cop security guard – as in needing to feel secure – Rachel Burke (Burke’s law?) has been assigned to begrudgingly watch over the Mayfield Addiction Clinic over the Memorial Day Weekend (memorial = dead). It’s a clinic which deals with, well, addictions, and there is methadone stored there – not to mention frequent break-ins– so it stands to reason it can’t be left alone without some protection.

But, this is a genre film, so naturally things aren’t what they appear to be. They certainly don’t seem benign, as objects move, shake and appear in the shadows. As with most thriller kinds of films of this type, you are most likely looking not at the central character as she moves around, but the dark space down the hall, or the doorway on one of the sides of the corridor. Then there are the mysterious phone calls and the static that appear on the radio as a supernatural “tell” that something is about to happen. Woooooooooo, eerie, boys and girls.

The mysteriousness level is enhanced by the sharp use of stark color lights (red, blue, etc., or even the clarity of white). Most of the time, due to its use by so many other films, this visual has become kind of hackneyed, but Curran manages to make it work quite well here, showing emotion rather than just “Boo! Different lighting!” That makes me happy.

Also, this film is not just about the supernatural (or is it?), but a supernatural thriller (or is it?). See, that’s when a film becomes a thriller, making the watcher wonder. That leads me to another commonly used trope that is exploited here, which is a character (Burke) walking around a dark building with many doors, using only a flashlight (the lights go out during the story, not like CSI where they never turn the lights on in the first place…never understood that…”Look, audience, we have cool little flashlights!” But I digress…

As far as walking around the building, usually I hate these moments because they tend to last too long, turning suspense into annoyance and finally boredom. While there are a lot of scenes like that, again Curran takes the high road and tends to break it up into shorter segments, keeping the suspense high. Amusingly, the only distraction that really took me out of the moment was a scene where Burke investigates a bathroom, and the toilet seat is up. The back of my neck hairs stood up. Any male reading this that is cohabiting with a female partner will understand.

The premise is not new (not going to give it away) and I saw the central theme coming early on, though I wasn’t sure where it was going or how it would end. That helped in part to keep my grubby fingers off the fast forward button. This, actually, is a compliment to Curran’s direction and writing, to take a tried-and-true idea and jig with it in a way to keep the interest level.

Sarah Nicklin
Burke is played by multi-festival award-winning Sarah Nicklin. Now, I have to admit I love Sarah – no, not in that creepy older guy lusting after a hot younger woman, but rather I enjoy her acting skill and I have for a while, as she is a very natural talent. Yes, the role here plays towards the mostly “scared,” but that also makes the contrasts even more realistic and jutting.

While the idea of this film is similar in some ways to another film she was in (though not as the locus character) called Normal (2015), it takes a different turn than the previous one, and her character is very dissimilar than the other lead. Again, this is a good thing.

Judith O'Dea
The cameo du jour for this film is Night of the Living Dead’s (1968) Judith O’Dea, as a Doctor of the Mind (okay, psychiatrist… happy?). To be honest, I always through her acting in NOTLD was kinda wooden, even if she is one of the central characters who is supposed to be in shock, but she certainly does fine here, and I’m glad to see her working again. I would also like to congratulate Curran for not having someone say to her, at some point, “They’re coming to get you, Doctor.” Not every actor needs to have a “Woha” or “I’ll be back” that they just have to use to remind everyone (i.e., beat over the head with their ego) of their classic turns. Besides, she gets to say the film’s tagline, so that’s good enough for me.

There is no nudity in the film (though Nicklin carries the undies scenes quite well), but a nice level of gore FX is executed. Not a huge amount, but enough to make it stick out a bit more and be quite effective.

I enjoyed how this careened over a number of genres, such as slasher, doctor experimentation, supernatural, zombie, paranormal, social commentary about family dynamics, psychodrama, crime drama, and straight out horror; and yet, it doesn’t stay in any one stream long enough to overstay it’s welcome, nor pass so fast that it is ignorable.  

According to IMDB, this is Curran’s second full-length film (he directed the recording of a live stage production about Edgar Allen Poe previously). As such, it’s a work to be proud of, and there’s plenty of fodder there to grow on. I look forward to charting his path.
 

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Review: The Death of April

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2015
Images from the Internet

The Death of April
Written and directed by Rubin Rodriguez
Mojo Creative Group / itn distribution
86 minutes, 2012 / 2015
www.itn distribution.com
www.mojogroup.tv
www.facebook.com/deathofapril
www.mvdvisual.com

After college, Meagan Mullen (Katarina Hughes) moves from her family in California to Bayonne, NJ (isn’t that punishment enough?) for a teaching job. And then there is something other-worldly going on in her apartment.

Mixing documentary style (“based on a true story…”) and found footage, we learn right from the start that something has happened to Meagan, as she is referred to in past tense, so there is no spoiler alert there. Her mom (Stephanie Domini), dad (Travis Peters) and law school student older brother (Adam Lowder), among others, reminisce about what a wonder kid she was, and beautiful person she turned out to be, while we see real VHS home video clips and photos of Hughes as she was growing up. This is a really nice touch.

Katarina Hughes as Meagan Mullen
Being a child of modern technological and mediated culture, Meagan is constantly video selfie-ing herself as a record to send home, which is a lovely thought, but man, the ego is tremendous. Is there anyone who actually needs to have this much of their life recorded?

But, of course, there’s the mysterious goings on, such as a door in the background opening and closing by itself behind her, or a strange shadow that crosses over the camera. Didn’t anyone else (i.e., family and friends) watch them? No matter what happens she stays there; I kept thinking of the Eddie Murphy routine from Delirious (1983) where he talks about white people staying in haunted places. Why didn’t someone tell her to get the fuck out? While spending half the time whining about sounds keeping her away or clothes that have been pulled out of drawers and end up on the floor, she claims she’s happy there, as well.

As you may have guessed by this point, this borrows liberally from the Paranormal films. What that means, of course, is that while Meagan or anyone else is in front of the camera, you’re not looking at them, you’re looking behind to see if any spookiness is slinking by. After a while, that stops though, as there is a “tell” (a poker term; look it up) where there is some “noise” on the image, sort of like digital static, just before something occurs (most of the time). As Michael Palin said in Monty Python, “Oh! What a giveaway!”

Perhaps on some level, Meagan brought this all on herself; it seems she would play with an Ouija board trying to conjure spirits at some point (pre-Jersey), and it is possible the spirits or poltergeist followed her, is one of the implications. After all, Meagan does a couple of strange things even before moving to Jersey, such as standing in the back yard during a rain staring at nothing.

One thing that kept sticking in my mind is that everyone keeps going on and on about how wonderful, open, cheerful, positive, etc., Meagan was, and I kept thinking that this is defensive behavior, because it was just too over the top, in a “the lady doth protest too much” (Hamlet, FYI) way. But I’m not even halfway through the film yet, so we’ll see, eh wot?

The entity in question is a riddle. Is it said poltergeist, is it the ghost of April (Paulina Grochala, who was also the lead character in a short film by Rodriquez called Faust, which is also centered around an Ouija board) who was murdered in the apartment before Meagan moved in, or is it possibly a demon as one character (Amy Rutledge) posits? April’s murder becomes an obsession for Meagan. Wisely for the story, there are a lot of open questions at the end, rather than sewing it up nicely, for which I’m grateful.

The film relies more on spooky happenings than on anything else, and while there is a scene with some blood, this is hardly what one could call a gorefest. If you’re looking for some exposed body parts, well, that’s completely out of the question. What you will see is some decent acting, an okay story that would be better suited at an hour rather than full feature length (but then again, I feel that way about most movies I review), and some nice jump scares. What you won’t find is anything related to the DVD cover image other than the aforementioned Ouija board. Oh, and the only extra is the trailer (as seen below).

This is totally a digression, but I once owned an Ouija board. At some point it unnerved me so much, I took an axe to it, and threw it in three different garbage containers around the neighborhood. Did not like the mojo.

As far as recommendations go, yeah, if you liked the Paranormal films, or enjoy stories of possession or supernatural events or things that literally go bump in the night, you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJwSBFf8yE