Nicolas Gessner’s 1976 film The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane has finally come to Shudder, enchanting and entertaining fresh audiences with yet another strong early performance from Jodie Foster and Martin Sheen. Foster plays Rynn Jacobs, a remarkably intelligent child who lives on the edge of town in a huge house with (apparently) her parents, although they remain unseen, creating ambiguity as to whether they are actually there or not. The story is based on a book by Laird Koenig’s 1974 novel of the same name (keen to check it out), and the film brought Shirley Jackson’s novels to mind, particularly We Have Always Lived in the Castle, particularly the invasive threat of the townsfolk (from nosy landladies to pedophiles) as well as the ambiguous agenda of the protagonist (Merricat and Rynn). As with most of her early roles, including Taxi Driver, it’s a challenging one and also controversial, but Foster really nails it. Martin Sheen is at his utmost depraved here as Frank Hallet, a pedophile with an unhealthy interest in Rynn who not only continues to frequent the house with increased malice with every visit (and the hamster scene is also truly unforgivable), but is also the son of the unpleasant landlady Cora. The landlady might also discover more than she bargained for when she tries to investigate the whereabouts of Rynn’s curiously absent parents.

I enjoyed uncovering the mystery of her parents in this one, and while I have many unanswered questions about Rynn, I think she’s much more sympathetic and likeable than Merricat in Shirley Jackson’s novel. There’s also a sense of poetic justice that pervades the text. Rynn seems to enjoy her autonomy and it earns her our respect as an audience when we see how independent and resourceful she is. She’s also visited by a friendly police officer (who is also a bit useless, naturally) and her magician friend/police officer’s nephew/friend with benefits Mario, who seems nice enough, although perhaps still a bit dodgy with their age difference (one of the main controversies from the film arose from Foster’s nudity in the film, which was thankfully a stunt double and played by her adult sister Connie). I think the critics who think the mystery plot points are weak are missing the point of the film – it’s really about Rynn and her preservation, and the mystery is just a framing device to expose us to her vulnerability (as shown in Frank’s increasingly heinous visits and demands) and self-preservation. Frank himself is the embodiment of white male privilege, a WASPish young man with no disregard for others or manners or even the well-being and safety of children, and indeed, his toxicity and predatory behaviour is a threat that is far more dangerous than any absent parents. Frank can do as he pleases and get away with his crimes because he lives a life of privilege from his mother’s investments, even though she is hardly likeable but carries sway in the town. His crimes are mostly well known and the town’s dirty secrets, yet no one seems to stand up and take him out as they really should.

As a genre film, it’s part mystery, thriller, and possibly even horror. I think the film effectively blends and transcends these genre categories, and it’s really fascinating to watch. Apparently it was initially supposed to be a play, and there’s a theatricality and sense of theatre set design throughout that make this appealing to watch, and augmented by the strong actor performances all around. This is a buried treasure in Foster’s early filmography and it exceeded all of my expectations. I’m glad that Shudder is offering this great film and I hope more folks can experience it.

Duncan Skiles’ 2018 “killer thriller” The Clovehitch Killer is a real pearl on Netflix, a fantastic find that was recommended via one of Stephen King’s Tweets (he also gave it a glowing review). It’s based on the crimes of the BTK Killer (Dennis Rader), a serial killer who would break into homes and then bind and torture and kill (hence the name) whole families. He disappeared into the guise of dedicated suburban family father for decades before being uncovered. While the serial killer tropes and stories have been seemingly milked to death, this film takes the frightening idea of the potential serial killer father and asks the question, “What if your father was in fact a serial killer?,” and I think it ultimately succeeds in breathing new life into the serial killer story and offering fresh perspectives and questions. And there are plot twists and red herrings galore, particularly how the serial killer manipulates everyone around him, and the audience is also manipulated by their psychopathy and total lack of empathy (we also believe the lies and question our own intentions and antics).

The story is told from the POV of teen Tyler Burnside (Charlie Plummer), who lives with his devout Christian family somewhere in the Bible belt and whose father is scout team leader and an involved and cherished member of the community. When he discovers weird bondage photos in his father’s truck, he starts to question who his father really is, and the film gradually reveals increasing evidence that he may actually be the Clovehitch Killer who has been butchering women throughout the years, although there is ambiguity as to whether it is really him. Tyler’s revelations are met with backlash and ostracization from the Christian community, particularly his Christian “friends” and love interests, who are quite shallow and judgemental despite their seemingly Christian upbringing (they see him as a BDSM fetishist and thus a pervert within their conservative mindset), which is perhaps an indictment of conservative Christian followers in these small suburban communities in general. The POV is effective in building suspense, particularly since the findings and clues are revelations for both Tyler and the viewer, and the limitlessness to the serial killer’s depravity through these reveals is particularly shocking. As a viewer, I think we are endlessly drawn to this idea of social deviation, the idea that someone could be so detached from human feeling and emotion for another human being, especially within the parameters of our mundane suburban lives, and this really draws us in.

Tyler’s vegetative uncle Rudy is blamed for the crime, but one wonders if perhaps he was put into that state to be culpable for the crimes. Again, that ambiguity is employed to create tension. Tyler is joined by Kassi (Madisen Beaty, who notably played one of the Manson girls in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – now that I think about it, most of the actresses who play Manson girls in that film [see also Sydney Sweeney, Maya Hawke, Dakota Fanning, Samantha Robinson, etc.] are smoking hot and are all really famous now!), a sexy neighbour who is also super interested in serial killers (and has read all of the case files!). They naturally team up to find out whodunnit, and the horror of discovery (or what they will discover, or what if they’re caught) lingers with us, and well as Tyler’s moral confusion (should I do the right thing? What is the right thing to do? Protect my family or tell the truth?). Tyler’s father Don (Dylan McDermott, The Perks of Being a Wallflower) is excellent as the possible serial killer, and the likeness between him and Rader is uncanny. I really enjoyed seeing Samantha Mathis (Broken Arrow, Pump Up the Volume, Ferngully, and also River Phoenix’s last girlfriend) as Tyler’s mother as well, although I didn’t recognize her at first. I shouldn’t ramble on too much longer for fear of spoiling too much, but The Clovehitch Killer is a great little thriller/horror movie on Netflix, and I encourage everyone to watch it.

Let’s face it, the Puritans are/were pretty awful. As Ronald Hutton says, they ruined all our fun. Robert Eggers’ excellent debut film The Witch features a Puritan family in seventeenth-century (complete with awesome seventeenth-century dialogue!) rural America, who, after being exiled from their plantation for religious extremism, live on the edge of the wilderness, where they are terrorised by a malevolent witch. Eggers clearly establishes the witch as a real figure early in the film, showing her kidnap the family baby in the first fifteen minutes for unspeakable rites. It is interesting that he is so direct and explicit about this, perhaps to draw his audience into what it actually felt like to feel that these witches were feel and they are virtually ineffective and defenceless to prevent it. He draws from actual reported seventeenth-century accounts of witchcraft, featuring familiars, Satanic goats (Black Philip, one of my favourite characters), and featuring shape-shifting, demonic possession, and the sabbath.

While this all sounds familiar, the film is actually very much a revisionist film (not too dissimilar to some of the ideas about the witch being misrepresented and actually a figure for good and elemental worship that ParaNorman explores). The malevolent witch is everything that these early Modern Puritans feared and hated about the witch, but the family’s eldest daughter Thomasin (played superbly by newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy) arguably possesses aspects of witchcraft. Earlier in the film, she tells her youngest sister that she is a witch and will eat her flesh and her little sister actually believes her to be one. Thomasin just wants to live, however, and her overbearing and repressed upbringing leads her to explore her sexuality. The Puritan climate is stifling and restrictive to her, so her natural response is to rebel against it. In many ways this film is also about empowering her voice and finding that freedom, providing a key feminist reading of the story.

Is it terrifying? Yes, it is, mainly because you’re put in the forest with a malevolent entity whom you don’t know what they’re capable of. If they’re willing to kill children, what will they do to you? Of course, this isn’t really an accurate representation of witches – witches are nothing like that, and are more akin to Thomasin’s coming-of-age transformation into her own self and womanhood. The whole film is thrilling, but I really enjoyed the final few scenes where she is free from the shackles of her Puritanical upbringing and can actually live. It is a shame, however, that her whole family had to die in the process, and we are never clear of the malevolent witch’s motives, since the story is only told from the family’s perspective.

For some, it may seem a slow burner (I actually thought it was super exciting the whole way through, especially with the increasingly erratic circumstances that occur), but this is also about a family on the edge, suffering from grief (the mother cries every five minutes, but with all her unhappiness and paranoia, one wonders if she would be crying anyway even if the baby hadn’t disappeared). As the story progresses and they become more suspicious of each other, they become more delusional, more unhinged. Accusations fly, and they become more desperate and dependent on Christ. But there is no Christ here – this is a godless land. It’s time to believe in the potential of oneself rather than humility and self-doubt. Christianity will not save you from your fate. I don’t think Eggers is condemning religion here, but he’s definitely not endorsing it either.

While I would have liked to have seen a more positive representation of the witch (although we do see it with Thomasin in many ways) and the forest (particularly with rising issues in today’s environmentalism), Eggers forces us to confront a darker side of our past and within ourselves, and I think he succeeds. The incredible cinematography, the looming, eerie shapes and sounds, provide a deeply unsettling atmosphere, and I was so fortunate to catch it in Newcastle’s Tyneside Cinema, which I strongly recommend visiting. This is cinema at its finest – cinema as it’s meant to be seen. The also excellent film The Devils may come to mind with regards to the striking visuals and compelling supernatural storyline, but this is a very different film. The Witch is one of the best horror films in ages, and a real treat if you can watch it. I strongly recommend it.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQXmlf3Sefg]

‘Vakey, vakey, Petyr!’ Hats off to my amazing girlfriend Daisy for getting me into this! In the frenzy of recent vampire films such as Let the Right One In, the Twilight series , and more, What We Do in the Shadows emerges as an exciting addition to the vampire comedy film canon. It’s a parody in the vein of other horror/comedy classics such as The Fearless Vampire Killers with a healthy dose of This is Spinal Tap, and thus told in spectacular mockumentary fashion. Set in modern times New Zealand, the film tells of a group of vampires from across the ages who all live together: Viago, a flamboyant eighteenth-century vampire, Vladislav, a bat-shit crazy medieval vampire, Deacon, an ex-Nazi vampire, and Petyr, an ancient, Nosferatu-style vampire.

Despite their centuries of life experience, they are still clumsy and blundering, and the film chronicles their day-to-day lifestyle (hanging out, having house meetings, having awkward dinner parties and then killing their guests, etc.). At one such awkward dinner party, one of the guests Nick tries to escape and is unexpectedly bitten and blooded by the near feral Petyr (who sleeps in a tomb in the basement of their house). Nick decides to join their group, but they don’t really like him – I didn’t really like Nick either, he’s an idiot and tends to fuck things up. They really like his human friend Stu though. Anyway, the film satirises all aspects of vampire lore, from the Count Orlock style of Nosferatu to “The Beast” (you’ll have to watch the film to find out more) to the amusing rivalry between vampires and werewolves. For me, the film is just so fun and unpredictable that it’s a great thrill ride. The film also satirises the vampire’s assistant trope seen in Dracula and Let the Right One In, with Deacon basically making his assistant Jackie do everything for him without keeping his promise of blooding her. All the vampires really add something to do it, and the movie starts off on an exciting note, taking the mundane (a house meeting) and making it creative just because of its characters and premise (Viago knocks on Vladislav’s door and accidentally interrupts his weird orgy, and then tries to wake up Petyr, and when that doesn’t go so well, he gives him a rooster). The usual vampire tropes apply (death by sunlight, stakes and garlic suck, and they have to drink blood), but they’re explored in such hilarious and inventive ways, and that’s what makes this film so special.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2w3H_oLSIU&w=560&h=315]

It’s hard to tell you more without giving away the juicy bits, but I will say that the ending was great too, and I’m usually picky with endings (though they should have killed off Nick – what an awful character). Check out What We Do in the Shadows when you can – it’s got bite!

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZEWtyhpes&w=560&h=315]

My top five 2015 films:

Far from the Madding Crowd
The Revenant
Mad Max: Fury Road
Ex Machina
The Martian