Review: The Pact (2012)

Nicole (Agnes Bruckner) and Annie (Caity Lotz) are dealing with the loss of their mother, something of a bitter sweet affair since they both suffered at her hands, and there is very little love lost. Annie is reticent to go back to the family home to sort the affairs out, since it holds so many bad memories. It's only when Nicole does not answer her phone for days, and no one – even her young daughter Eva (Dakota Bright) who is staying with a friend (Kathleen Rose Perkins) – has heard from her that she decides she has to. Assuming Nicole has 'done what she always does when it gets tough' and resorted to drugs and running away, Annie begins the process of sorting the house. 

Trying her phone again, she is disturbed to find it ringing in the closet that the siblings were locked as punishment when they were children.
When Annie is assaulted and thrown around the room by an unseen force, she wisely gets out of the house, and seeks the help of local cop Creek (Starship Trooper's Casper Van Dien). He's dismissive and she ends up basically using him as a sounding board for her subsequent discoveries of both her mother's past, and a series of unsolved murders that all seem to be connected with the family history.

The Pact is Nicholas McCarthy's first feature film, an extension of a previous short film which basically dealt with the events of this film's first 10mins – the disappearance of Nicole. The fact he shows such skill and flair with both the shocks and the tension he manages here, shows us that he is a director to watch out for in the future. The film builds slowly, allowing the shocks to come naturally and not filling the empty space with fake jumps that so many directors do.
The first half of the film is a creepy and often scary ghost story, with Annie bringing in a blind stoner psychic Stevie (Haley Hudson) into the house to try and find out what's going on and what the spirits that are prevalent there want from her. After Annie finds out more about her mother's past, she begins to piece more together and the focus of the peril becomes something a lot more tangible.

It's a film that succeeds in scaring, and creating a real sense of dread and terror, and yes, I actually jumped – and not because of some musical sting or quick cut. The fear in what you don't see, or what you're afraid you might see works wonders here. Even when it begins to play out as a different threat in the final act, McCarthy piles the mounting dread on in spades. 

While not completely original, there are enough twists and jumps to keep it fresh, and the brooding cinematography and music add greatly to the experience. One slight gripe is the image used for the UK poster (seen above) doesn't really represent what goes on in the film, however cool and creepy it looks.

Cult classic status may well be assured for this, but in the light of such hits as the Paranormal Activity series and such, mainstream success should be assured, it certainly deserves it. Hollywood should be knocking at McCarthy's door!

8 out of 10

The Woman In Black (2012) Q & A with director, James Watkins

 

The Woman In Black opened in UK cinemas on February 10^th (a week earlier in the US) and the week before previews have been touring the country, accompanied by the director, James Watkins. I sat in on the question and answer session that took place in Manchester to find out more.

What was it about the original story that got you into the project?

It was really Jane Goldman's screenplay that I read, I thought it was a very good screenplay, I thought it would be a very scary film, but also it had something about it, it had some heart. It was about loss, about this character's journey. Also I thought it was interesting to try and make this film that could really scare people but didn't have any gore or violence – not that I have a problem with any of that – but there's a lot of horror films now that purport to be scary but are actually just nasty. Again, I don't mind nasty but it's not necessarily scary. I thought maybe we could make a film here that was actually scary by sort of playing on the imagination more, going into a sort of old school way. It's a ghost story; it's what you can't see, it's what's in the shadows and what's in the edges of the frame. What's in your imagination. I thought that was an interesting challenge I suppose.

This idea of less is more, and of what you don't see is more frightening, when you're making the film, is that difficult to know if it's working?

Yeah, it's really difficult to know. You have to put it in front of an audience again and again and again, and that's not a nice thing to do when you're in the process of making a film. It's a sort of necessary pain in the process of editing, you're showing the film before it's finished. You can take a few hits in doing that and sometimes you've got to do it on the quiet because you don't want all the producers and all the money guys hearing all the bad things that people have to say. So, you're just working it through. The film was actually interesting because however less is more we thought it should be, the film was always saying to us “just take it back a bit more”. Lower the music, make it more in the sound design, in his breathing, in his footsteps. Be with him. It's quite held back in terms of sound, if you went from this film to say, Transformers it would blow your head off in terms of the sound design. It's quite stripped back and spare.

You say that, but you don't deny the audience some good old jumps.

Well, you've bought a ticket for a scary film, you want to have some jumps, right? So hopefully there's a few of those that blow you back in your seat a little bit.

What was your relationship with Jane Goldman, she's a big genre fan, she's really into horror so was it important to be working with someone who really understands where you're coming from?

Yeah, Jane's very smart and we had a really good collaboration and it was great to have someone that had the same reference movies, and we love the genre. So it was good, it was a real exploration, together. It was great, I had Jane in the edit, she watched the film so many times. Constantly having someone so smart, who you can say “What do you think of this? What do you think of that?” It's a great sounding board, a real pleasure.

It's impossible not to talk about the film and mention Daniel Radcliffe, he gives a really impressive performance, how did he come on board and what was it like working with him?

He read the script and liked it, then we met and he saw the film the same way as I saw the film, we quite bonded, because around that time I met Dan, there was all these kind of people saying we should make it in 3D. I was like, “Look, you can make it in 3D, but you won't be making it with me”. Dan was pretty much of the same mind. I'm not a big fan of 3D and I don't think it's appropriate for a film like this. He understood what I was trying to achieve and he was very smart and talked about the character in very smart ways. Dan in person is not at all what you imagine. He's not Harry Potter, either! He's a very considered guy and very committed and wanted to challenge himself and wanted to try new things, and I said “Great – I'm going to challenge you” and he was up for that and he embraces that. He went and met with grief counsellors and read lots of books on grief and really threw himself into his prep and research for the role and I think he really carries the movie.

How did you approach the source after it had been a successful play and TV drama?

I think Jane wanted to give Arthur a real kind of journey as a character and that sense of loss. The sense that he's searching for something. He's really not functioning properly, he's not really there for his son. He's just drown in grief and he's kind of chasing shadows. We didn't pursue any of it in the context of this is like the play, or whatever. We went back to the source book and sort of wanted to do it in the spirit of the book and do justice to it, but make it film shaped. I think the most gratifying thing for Jane and I was the fact that Susan Hill saw the film and really gave us a good thumbs up. So that was a big moment of relief for us.

When you say you wanted to make the story 'film shaped', do you mean giving people what they expect from a horror film with respect of the creepy kids, and hostile villagers, etc..

Not really. I think film shaped means that the character has to have a particular journey, and you have to go in a particular direction. It's very interesting when people talk about what you expect from a particular horror film or talk about tropes or anything; when you try and name a British haunted house film, when was the last one made? Before The Awakening, made at about the same time as this film, you've got to go back to The Innocents and films like that. It hasn't been done in this country. The Spanish have done it, but we haven't really made those sorts of films in this country for a long time and I don't see why we shouldn't. There's a certain grammar within a horror film, I suppose in terms of how you create effects, and there's room for originality in that certainly.

Where was the film shot?

It was all over really, we shot the main set inside the house was in Pinewood Studios. Then the village was up in Yorkshire at Halton Gill. The causeway was in Essex, the house was in Peterborough, another house was in Cambridgeshire. The railway was in Sussex, so we travelled all around.

How did you feel about coming under the iconic brand of Hammer Films?

It's a funny thing with Hammer, because they've got some great films from the 50s and 60s, and they made some pretty crappy films in the 70s. So you want to try and aspire to the good ones and not be one of the bad ones I suppose. I didn't really worry about it too much, I was just trying to tell the story in its own way.

Do you believe in the paranormal or spirits?

(laughs) No, nor does Jane!

What have you planned next?

The truth is I don't really know. I've got about three or four potential projects that might happen but there's never any guarantees because you've got to persuade someone to give you a lot of money to make the film and they don't do that very easily. Hopefully I'll get another film under way towards the end of this year, but I can't guarantee anything really.

Thank you very much James Watkins.

The Woman In Black (2012)

So one of the most eagerly awaited horror films of the year is upon us. The Woman In Black, Hammer Film's version of the Susan Hill novel (also a very successful and superb stage play and infamous TV adaptation). Directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake) from a Jane (Kick Ass) Goldman screenplay. I have posted before about my concerns as to what changes will be made with the story, and after thinking about it, a straight filmed version of the book or play would have probably left audiences very cold. As it is, the embellishments Goldman has made to the story are mostly for the better. Considering this version has the backing of Hill (after she apparently hated the Nigel Kneale scripted TV version for changing little things like the dog's sex and the main characters name from Kipps to Kidd) either shows her marketing savvy or she has mellowed a great deal since 1989).
The big stumbling block for many will be the casting of Daniel Radcliffe as the main role or Arthur Kipps, a widower with a small child. I have to admit it is a little stretch to accept this. He still looks very young himself, and although I've never really been a Harry Potter fan, it is how we all see him. (I do regret not going to see him in Equus as I love that play - and the film - and would have been interesting to see him try to tackle something so challenging). I will concede that he won me over. There wasn't really any point during the film where he "pulled me out of the action" as it were. In fact, there is a whole stretch in the house where there is no dialogue, and only Radcliffe. Fair play to him, the boy did good.
The predicted "jumps" and spooky bits plastered all over the trailers still work in the context of the film, and some actually better. Trailer spoilers are a big bug bear for me with films like this, as these moments work not because they are just sudden noises (the good old "Lewton bus") but because they are built up to, you know they are coming, and it's the tension of waiting for them that makes them all the more enjoyable. Surely I'm not the only one who sits there thinking "make sure you don't jump" because I don't want the stranger next to me to think I'm soft! This film delivers these jumps successfully on more then one occasion. So, bravo to all involved.
The set design and locations are superb. It was wonderful to see versions of the famous "Angel of Sorrow" angels at either side of  the mausoleum of Samuel Daily's young son. (My cemetery geek-ness never takes time off). Sound design is spot on, nothing too showy and brash, and the visual effects are not over the top either. A good old fashioned ghost story. It should carry a warning for those who have Victorian doll phobias though!

an example of the "Angel of Sorrow" so you know what to look out for!

I won't go on anymore, as I'm planning on including some thoughts into my March piece for Starburst Magazine (which, by the way will be back in the shops while stocks last - subscribe to guarantee you don't miss an issue) and don't want to include spoilers or anything here.
Final thoughts - this could have been a disaster, and I'm sure there are many who hoped it would be, but it is actually a well made, genuinely scary film. I wasn't over keen on the end, but anyone who knows the material will know that that will always be a contentious issue. At least it didn't go for a Hollywood "everything is right with the world" spin..  Make sure you catch it if you get the chance... 8 out of 10.