Recently for reasons unbeknownst to myself i had an urge to watch a really scary horror film. deciding to spread forth my wings from my own collection of frightners i decided to buy a horror film. in HMV my eyes set upon '[Rec]' a film i had heard good things of and read good reviews and the case itself promised delights unknown to quench my aforementioned desire. "A Short, Swift Terrifying Ride." empire. "The Scariest Film Ever." Billy Chainsaw, Bizarre. Two Five Star Ratings and Four Four Stars. encouraging, no? so i forked over the relevant money and went on my merry way.
this fair evening after watching 'say anything' decided that it was a suitable time to bust out the swift terrifying ride. i was incredibly ready to be scared shitless. but after 75 minutes (approx) i was left dissatisfied. and i can't for the life of me work out why, i wanted to like it, i was fully preapred to sleep with the lights on and mentally adjusting myself to the fact that i'd be having some creepy dreams. now where did it go wrong?
the menu for a start was full of spoilers for the shocks that were about to unfold. the spooky zombie like creatures were on full display in the menus and when you selected 'play movie' it flashed up a segment of the film that later on ruined what could've potentially been a quite frightening moment. but because of the spoiler i saw it coming. (but when in horror films the lights go out and someone explores a space unaware of what is inside, it is an ineviatablity that something will pop out) Now this Ghoul thing brings me on nicely to another point. the ghouls weren't scary, they were a bizarre amalgamation of all things popular in 20th century horror. some wizened J-Horror influence, guttural growling and bloodthirsty scampering of modern day, poorly reenvisioned zombies. so when there were shocking moments of ghoul revealing i was left let down. not scared.
also as the blair witch project taught me, hand held horror is rarely scary. (hand held sci-fi (cloverfield) c'est bon) it's irksome. the sheer idea that it is set up in such a way causes you to pre empt the scary moments, the audience are continually and hurridely molly coddled along from staged 'real-life' shock to staged 'real-life' shock. the moments that had frightening potential were either shaky or altogether glossed over. now i don't want gratuitous gorno splatter and i, more than most, am a massive fan of understated suspensful 'less is more' olden days horror but i found myself unscared by the antics on screen, purley because they were set up in a way that made me forsee the shocking conclusions. perhaps this is more of a reflection of how i view horror films and on that note i must point out that [Rec] is a very well crafted film, playing to it's strengths and with an excellent use of sound distortion and lighting.
as for the covers claim that i'd 'Experience Fear' i did not. it's a hard film to give a rating to however, because if it was simply a case of 'was i scared?' it'd score poorly, on the other hand if it was a case of 'was it a well put together film and yadda yadda indie award winning words blether?' who knows? i may re-watch it at a later date when i'm not expecting horror, maybe i'll pretend i'm going watch camberwick green and slip in [Rec] instead.
not best pleased. continuing the trend of 'ticked off kids' in horror.
No comments:
Post a Comment