Much of the problem with Castle Freak (and in a rather wider segment of the horror genre in general) can be seen in the opening. While on a technical level this is an effective watch, with a degree of craft above your basic fright flick, it relies upon tropes that are just not very interesting anymore. The film opens with a cloaked woman praying at an alter before being interrupted by the howls of a beast far off. She goes to the beast, feeds it and punishes it, and then returns to her altar. She strips of her cloak and proceeds to whip her naked body. We cut ahead an undisclosed amount of time, the beast is free, the woman is dead and the camera lingers on her body as it is first mourned by the beast and then desecrated. Immediately this put this critic in a place against the film because it, as is so often the case, from the beginning treats its female characters as disposable objects to be stripped and destroyed. In 2020 this is boring and unforgiveable, with numerous examples of films that elevate themselves by offering interesting material no matter what the gender of the performer (for example Brandon Cronenberg’s Possessor).

Which is a shame. Because Castle Freak at its best is at least an interesting watch. A remake of the beloved 90s Stuart Gordon curio (based off the H.P. Lovecraft short The Outsider starring horror royalty Barbara Crampton – who here produces) this version follows a young woman who inherits the castle of both the opening and the title, and with it the creature that lies within. Our protagonist seems to have a link to the place that allows her visions others can’t see, while soon arrives to be victims of an increasingly violent second half. Kathy Charles’ script at least finds time for some interesting character development, whilst director Tate Steinsiek mounts sequences impressively.

But again and again it falls back on unfortunate stereotypes and tropes. A quarter of a century on from the original and you ache for the horror genre to fully move off of the more problematic elements this film wallows in. Even the presence of Jake Horowitz (so impressive in this year’s outstanding The Vast of Night) in the cast can’t redeem the film.

Some genre fans will forgive the film its shortcomings, powering through to some of the more enjoyably violent moments. There is a degree of world-building here and ambition that is admirable. You just wish the film didn’t need to plum the worst aspects of the genre I so love. Certainly there is talent here, it’s just cocooned in a film that feels rather lacking.

C​hildren of the Corn may well be the ultimate Stephen King franchise, a prolific series drawing off a 1977 short story by the horror maestro. It is a series that has been stretched and shaped almost beyond recognition. But Fritz Kiersch’s initial adaptation at least adheres to King’s work, following a young couple Vicky and Burt (and it is a misfortune that one of the leads shares a name with a Sesame Street character as it saps the tension out of some of the moments) who find themselves lost in a town ruled by a corn-worshipping cult of children.

Children of the Corn isn’t quite as much fun as its set-up would lead you to think. After an exemplary prologue that sees children brutally murdering members of the town, the film slows and ambles along to an obvious third act. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton are passable as our leads but they really need more to do before this finale. There are some solid performances amongst the younger members of the cast and John Franklin’s Isaac is a fabulous villain, with Franklin’s voice resonating out and chilling the audience.

This is a cheap and cheerful 80s horror, occasional undone by poor special effects but an entirely watchable affair. It helps that at the film’s core is a concept that no matter how passable the adaptation is will chill viewers. The empty town is an unnerving setting and Kiersch shoots it well, even if the rest of his work feels formulaic. It even feels like there is something to watching children as the antagonist here, our natural sympathies challenged by the fact that these horrid pint-sized demons really do deserve to die. There’s fun to be had with this horror, even if this adaptation of King lacks the humanity that marks the best of the works based on his books.

Without offering spoilers it must be said that the end of Children of the Corn feels pretty definitive. But when a film makes $14.6 million on a budget of $800,000 sequels were sure to follow. And so, some nine years later, we got Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice, the second of eleven works to bare the eponymous title. These asshole children are back and they’re still talking about corn, mystic god-like figures and murdering adults.

This time we follow a journalist and his son as they investigate (poorly) a spate of mysterious deaths in a small town in Nebraska, all while a gang of pesky young adults get up to mischief. It’s interesting that this is less of a straight repeat of what came before but there is less to distinguish this one, with it more acting like a middle-tier slasher.

There are hints of The Omen in this sequel’s DNA, with the film periodically killing off its cast in lavish set pieces (when it is at its best). This is where director David Price appears to be having the most fun and some of this sequences are wonderfully ridiculous. But if the original was a decidedly 80s affair then this one has all the hallmarks of American horror in the early 90s. And by that it’s all a bit hokey and melodramatic, with characters given an abundance of soap opera-like drama to distract us from the horror we’ve all come here to watch. But where Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice properly falls down is in spending much of the narrative lacking the clarity of the original. Even though there are pacing issues to it, the first at least firmly establishes what the threat is and the extent that it is supernatural or otherwise. This is never quite achieved here, and the film suffers because of it, with generic horror tropes filling the void created by the absence of a compelling story.

Certainly Children of the Corn II is a more out-and-out enjoyable affair, absent much of the dourness that prevents its forebearer from being properly entertaining. The concept at the heart of this series is suitably ridiculous and you just wish everyone would get on-board with that and amp everything up a bit. The arrival of an absurd combine harvester in the second half and Ryan Bollman’s delightful scene-chewing as the villainous Micah makes this film just about worth your time.

On the one hand Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice is the inferior film, with weaker direction, acting and world building. But it feels a more enjoyable affair then the original, which benefits from an ace villain but lacks the necessary pace and willingness to take its concept to the full horrifying conclusion it really needs to be taken. Maybe one day this series will go the distance.

​New Zealand’s place in the world of horror comedy is a mighty one. From the early gore-packed works of Peter Jackson to the wonderfully silly Black Sheep to perhaps the best vampire film ever made, What We Do in the Shadows, there are numerous examples of subgenres being given a successful Kiwi twist. So Hayden J. Weal’s Dead has some pretty big shoes to fill. And if it doesn’t quite match some of the best of its brethren it at least has some charming characters and some fabulous set pieces.

A recently deceased cop (Tagg) needs the help of a stoner (Marbles) who can see ghosts to find an increasingly prolific serial killer who was responsible for Tagg’s death. Together their investigation sees them digging into each other’s past and entangles them in an increasingly complicated situation.

There’s a breezy quality to Dead as the film ambles along with a pace that emulates Marbles’ disposition. Some of the stoner humour was lost on this reviewer but the film’s sweet nature meant it was a perfectly watchable affair. The film is at its best as it explores the grief that etches onto its character by tragic events in their past. With ghosts in this world a temporary fixture, the relief felt by their presence is short lived and leads the film to have a surprising melancholy particularly as the narrative darkens and complicates.

The partnership of Thomas Sainsbury and Hayden J. Weal as writers, leads (the former is Marbles, the latter Tagg) and, in the case of Weal, director, benefits the film an easy chemistry between the two, whilst meaning there is a creative consistency here. There is a lot to charm a viewer in Dead (particularly a scene stealing turn from Tomai Ilhaia as Tagg’s foster sister) that it’s a shame that the pieces don’t all fit together. The folklore at the centre of the film is perhaps a tad too complex, there are one too many plot strands at play and so Sainsbury and Weal’s film never quite hits the heights the material could lead to. This, nevertheless, has cult classic written all over it and I imagine a segment of horror fans will come to cherish its unique taste on the ghost story subgenre.

Living in an isolated Appalachian community, Lemon (Danielle Deadwyler) has to look after her son alone, due to her husband’s disappearance. Things get worse when she’s summoned to see the cold-hearted matriarch of the mountain’s oldest family. To pay off a debt, she gives Lemon a task which threatens a decade’s old truce. If the task isn’t carried out, her son’s life is forfeited.

Acting as writers and directors, Lane and Ruckus Skye have crafted a quiet tale about legacy, and the lengths we take for our family. This is exemplified in both of the on-screen mothers; whose actions showcase how far they’re willing to go. Take Lemon, our protagonist. She’s a resourceful figure who keeps an eye out, intent on finding a solution. She just wants her boy to be okay, so when his life is threatened, she goes to newfound lengths to ensure that happens. No matter where the story takes her, you believe in every action she makes, and that’s thanks to Danielle Deadwyler’s committed performance.

She wouldn’t need to resort to such lengths were it not for Tommy Runion. As the head of her family, Tommy is intent on elevating their name, through whatever methods she can. This brutal nature is masked with a cheery disposition, and a willingness to discuss baking techniques. Catherine Dyer does good work in the role, conveying the cruelty lurking beneath her inviting tone. A special mention is deserved for Adam Boyer, who acts chilling just with a quiet word in one’s ear.

Whether the characters issues stem from a personal or political nature, it’s captured in engaging ways. Although, it’s difficult to shake how we’ve seen this story done better elsewhere, or the lack of tension within. There’s also a significant portion which takes place in a cult compound, and just feels like a needless diversion. In spite of this, the Skye’s have marked their feature directorial debut with a decent little thriller.

‘’Dogs can be our best friends and faithful companions, with centuries of evolution building in the relationship we now have we them. But sometimes this goes wrong and you get a film like Ropes. The set-up is simple: a paralyzed girl moves into a new home, complete with helper dog. But one bat bite later and there is now a rabid canine on the loose, leading to a fight for survival.

Ropes is one expertly crafted thriller with more than a few Hitchcockian traits embedded in the film’s DNA. A single location and a protagonist restricted by their own body recall Rear Window whilst the natural world threat is the kind of thing you’d see in The Birds. This is also a fiercely engaging take on the marauding rabid dog narrative that is perhaps most famous thanks to Stephen Kings’ Cujo (which is not one of the great adaptations of the masters work), and it even reminds of another King work, Gerald’s Game, as night and dehydration leads to unwanted visitors. And there is even something very 2020 to proceedings, with the cause of all the ill being a diseased bat and our hero being trapped in their home, unable to escape.

All this is to say that debut director José Luis Montesinos marshals the film well, working from the script up (co-written by Yako Blesa) to create a visually inventive work that manages to sustain its slight premise with a tense atmosphere dripping with dread. If there is nothing in Ropes that feels particularly fresh this does not stop it from being an engaging, often unnerving thriller that may very well diminish your love for man’s best friend.

For the set-up the film relies upon to properly work you need a compelling lead performance. And in this regard Ropes is lucky in that Paula del Rio gives one of the best turns in a genre film this year. A prickly, complicated figure, she nonetheless carries our sympathies through the extensive length of time where she is the only person on screen. The film asks a lot of her, putting del Rio through the ringer both physically and when it explores some of the more complicated aspects of the character’s backstory, and the actor does a tremendous job here. 

There has been a steady stream of narratives in recent years that pits characters against vicious animals (Crawl, Burning Bright, The Pool, 47 Metres Down to name four from the past decade). Ropes is one of the better entries thanks to a convincingly constructed narrative and lead performance that carries even the most challenging of moments. This one might not be for dog lovers, but it is sure to sustain genre fans who prefer their films to be almost unbearably tense.

​

Blackfoot Territory, 1869. After putting their wounded guide of out his misery, a group of Confederate soldiers find themselves lost in the wintery terrain. Without any horses, food, or supplies, they raid an isolated home, and murder its inhabitants, unaware they’ve missed a young girl. Intent on delivering hell, she follows their trail armed with her father’s guns, with a resurrected soldier for a companion.

Over 59 minutes, writer, director, and cast-member John Adams delivers a contemplative tale, where the setting is key. The harsh tone mirrors the frosty and unforgiving landscape, which reveals the darkness in people’s hearts. Honour and mercy are lost in favour of self-interest, be it for greed, self-preservation, or a thirst for vengeance. Here, revenge is literally a dish best served cold.

Framing the story is a voiceover from our lead, reciting the films events to a Confederate soldier intent on answers. It’s an interesting tactic which verbalises the inner struggles of our lead, portrayed by an exemplary Zelda Adams. By largely following her narration, we’re told key events rather than being shown them, which feels like the less impactful approach. This also means some characters aren’t able to speak, so feel more like plot conveniences than people.

This doesn’t take away from how tense things can get, with the distorted soundtrack proving unnerving. As the Confederates numbers lessen, we see the all-consuming nature of wrath, which hungers more with each offering. What Adams has made brings to mind The Crow, mixed with Antonia Bird’s Ravenous, for a tremendous mash-up of genres.

There is a limited sub-genre of serial killer films that focus on murder as something banal and even ordinary. While the likes of The Silence of the Lambs, Seven and Saw aestheticise and could be accused of glamorising murder, films such as A Short Film About Killing and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer take a straightforward and unflinching portrayal of terrible events. Cold Light of Day falls into this category, with the added chill factor of being based on the true crimes of Dennis Nilsen, a Scottish man who murdered multiple young men and boys in London in the late 1970s and early 80s.

The true story of Nilsen is horrific enough, but even if Cold Light of Day were pure fiction, it would be scarily believable. Writer-director Fhiona-Louise follows the button-down and unassuming civil servant Jordan March (Bob Flag) as he goes about his day, helps one elderly neighbour, looks after another neighbour’s cat, drinks in his local pub. He meets men at this pub as well as a local café, and they have some good times together. And he kills them. The film is quite extraordinary in its ordinariness, presenting a picture of London (or any city) that is perfectly recognisable. Long takes and largely fixed cameras, as well as a limited number of quite drab sets, rather discordant sound and natural lighting all combine to create something that draws on British social realism. The term ‘kitchen sink drama’ would apply well to this film, especially during the scenes in March’s flat that are largely captured from static positions, with little in the way of close-ups or anything beyond the location of an uninvolved observer. This observation just happens to include serial murder.

The film offers nothing overtly stylised; perhaps it’s what Seven might look like with a smaller budget and realist aesthetic. Louise also skilfully cuts between different events, including March’s memories of childhood as well as his crimes informing the present-day action as the police interview him. Flag’s central performance is the epitome of rumpled: even when he gets angry, he seems downtrodden and browbeaten. Other performances are similarly low key and always believable, from the arrogant Joe (Martin Byrne-Quinn) who comes to live with March to Inspector Simmons (Geoffrey Greenhill) who interrogates him. The low-key approach is maintained throughout, giving the film an especially crawly feeling.

Cold Light of Day could be accused of homophobia due to the film’s focus on homosexual associations. However, no perversity is attached to March’s sexuality. The evil that he inflicts is something specific to him and shown to be sickening to everyone involved. The murder sequences are especially distressing as March keens and moans as he does so, and his subsequent moments of nausea, grief and sorrow ensure that we view a murderer as a person, subject to the same responses as anyone even after he has done something appalling. That is perhaps the most terrifying thing about Cold Light of Day: not only could this be anyone, but we can have sympathy and perhaps similarity with this serial killer. Therefore, are such impulses as alien as we might like to think, or could they arise in ourselves as well?  

​How does one follow up perhaps the greatest zombie film since Romero’s heyday? This is the dilemma that faces director Yeon Sang-ho who has returned to the universe he so effectively explored with Train to Busan, as close to perfect a horror as we’ve had in the past five years. Sang-ho’s answer is probably not the one you were expecting, but if you’re willing to go along with Peninsula you will have a lot of fun with it.

After a short boat-set prologue reintroducing us to the apocalyptic nightmare of Train to Busan, the plot flashes forward four years. With the virus that struck in the original contained in a closed-off Korea, survivors find themselves barely existing in an uncaring world. A pair who lose so much at the start of the film are offered an out: return to their homeland to find a truck loaded with cash and they can live happily ever after. Of course, when they get there things do not go according to plan.

It is refreshing that Sang-ho has avoided a repeat of what has come before to instead explore what happens when society leaves a place of devastation and anarchy is allowed to take hold. What the film lacks in any kind-of efficient set-up (as the plot synopsis shows there’s nothing as simple as zombies-on-a-locomotive that made the original so thrillingly effective) it makes up for with an enticing bravado. The action beats are enjoyably bold, with several set pieces transitioning between settings and scope. While nothing quite reaches the emotional impactful of the last act of Train to Busan here this doesn’t prevent a fun roster of characters emerging in the film, who the audience can just about invest in before the chaos comes to the fore. Peninsula flows with ideas with some working better than others but it is a film that, for the right audience, will be a thrilling ride.
​
This is a preferable sequel to Train to Busan then something like Bus to Stockholm or Boat to New York. The creatives behind the original make fascinating choices and take the franchise in a unique direction. If it works better as an action film then a horror that’s ok as the action beats make Peninsula a particularly enjoyable work. Some quirky supporting character make up for a rather lacklustre lead (whose battles feel too internal for the heightened world he inhabits). I’m not sure I needed a sequel to one of the greatest zombie movies ever made but I’ll take this enjoyable genre piece anyway.

A shadowy, industrial-style room filled with the sights and sounds of pain. A massive hooded figure moves among the bodies, while various rusty and bloody tools scattered across tables and benches complete the milieu. One victim screams for mercy before the title appears. This collection of familiar genre elements suggests that Redwood Massacre: Annihilation is going to be a nasty, gory experience. What we get instead is a tough little film mushed into a convoluted big one. With too much plot, unconvincing character motivations and an overreliance on repeated elements, writer-director David Ryan Keith fails to generate much in the way of scares or indeed engagement. This is disappointing because of the evident genre knowledge and affection, as well as some missed opportunities at being innovative.

Keith’s attempts to shake things up begin early on. We quickly meet Max (Damien Puckler), a rugged, intrepid man searching through the wilderness. It’s a stirring introduction, setting up the expectation that this will be our hero and a showdown will occur between Max and the monstrous figure from the opening. However, we quickly learn that Max is something else entirely in another torture sequence aimed to make us squirm. From here, the rest of the cast are drawn into the narrative, from grieving father and author Tom Dempsey (Jon Campling, sporting the most peculiar haircut in the film) to Jen (Tevy Poe), who seems to have lost her character in the woods, and Gus (Gary Kaspar), the loveable lug with a heart as big as his bearlike body. And we have Tom’s daughter Laura, played by Danielle Harris whose horror filmography (especially in the Halloween franchise) brings a certain iconicity to the film. Sadly, none of these performers bring much in the way of charisma or dynamism, despite forced attempts to make them interesting.

The film’s better moments take place in the great outdoors (the film was shot in Scotland), as the central five search for answers about the fate of their loved ones. As cinematographer, Keith emphasises but does not sentimentalise the wilderness. Isolation is necessary and the visuals do communicate this, even if occasional character appearances from nowhere are less than convincing. As the film moves into its later acts, however, difficulties start to appear. The interiors are unconvincing and inconsistent: ostensibly we are underground yet there are windows; the location is supposed to be abandoned and yet it has power; the production design across different rooms feels inconsistent, and it is notable that the film has no credited production designer. Rooms with elaborate chain set-ups appear to exist for no reason other than plot, and while the characters legitimately keep asking “What the fuck is going on?!” it does get a little wearing.


As it progresses, Redwood Massacre: Annihilation slips into lazy suggestions of grand conspiracy as well as some uninspired stalking scenes. Keith’s direction is weak as is his editing, the juxtaposition of different shots and sequences breaking the tension while the pacing is laborious. The gore is ample and there are some wince-inducing kills, including a very nasty moment with a saw, a well-placed swing with an axe and some handmade decapitation. It is worth noting that as the Burlap Killer, Benjamin Selway provides an effectively menacing presence. His lumbering physical performance comes across as methodical rather than clumsy, and his quick head movements ensure that we remain aware this is a predator with keen senses. Indeed, he is quite scary in and of himself, until some explanation is offered and you start to wonder what the point is. The final moments are very strange, seemingly setting up for a further instalment with the cinematic equivalent of someone standing up to say ‘Durrrgh!’ As said, there could be a tough little slasher /folk horror film made around this topic. Maybe that’s the original film.