I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the deluge of found
footage/pseudo-documentary horror movies that arrived in the wake of the
success of The Blair Witch Project. For
every [REC] or Lake Mungo there are half a dozen straight to DVD cheapos with
little or nothing about them to recommend.
Their proliferation can likely be explained by the simple fact that they
don’t cost a lot to make and almost invariably make a profit. That they are supposed to look a bit shit
means that the market has been flooded by a plethora of ill-conceived,
half-arsed, badly shot re-treads created by second or third rate film-makers
looking to make a buck by riding a continuing and increasingly excremental wave
of popularity. Just slap an anonymous
snippet from a review on the cover and watch it fly off the shelves at local supermarkets.
One of the main stumbling blocks for any found footage movie is
credibility or lack thereof. To come
within spitting distance of succeeding the film-makers have to devise a reasonably
logical explanation for why a person, when his/her life is in serious jeopardy,
would continue to film events as they spiral out of control and become deadly. Although both Grave Encounters and its increasingly
demented sequel do not always present a convincing reason why the characters
would continue filming they do go to some length to make it work 90% of the
time.
The setting for both movies is an abandoned asylum somewhere
near Vancouver. In the first movie a group of film-makers whilst filming the
sixth episode of documentary TV show Grave Encounters find themselves at the
mercy of the revenants that now inhabit the secluded hospital. As if being menaced by the malevolent ghosts
of the deranged isn’t bad enough the building seems to exist in some kind of pocket dimension
where the laws of time and space no longer apply. The second movie follows a group of amateur
film-makers who, suspicious that the Grave Encounters movie was real, travel to
the abandoned asylum from the first movie to investigate.
The first movie is the directorial debut of a couple of
film-makers bearing the dubious moniker of The Vicious Brothers. With a risible pseudonym like that you would
be forgiven for thinking the movie would be equally risible. Instead we have a reasonably entertaining
addition to an over-saturated genre that succeeds in presenting the audience
with a wonderfully creepy setting and a number of effective (if often hoary)
jump scares. The movie is slightly over
reliant on the latter but nonetheless succeeded in making me jump on a number
of occasions whilst also presenting an atmosphere thick with escalating dread.
The sequel does what any sequel should do and brings some
new ideas to the table. The general
consensus amongst critics and horror fans seems to be that Grave Encounters 2
is somewhat inferior to the movie that spawned it. When the central characters first arrive at
the asylum I had a sinking feeling that I could only put down to a sudden sense
of déjà vu. It felt like what I was
about to witness was an unnecessary repeat of the events of Grave Encounters. To my surprise I found myself enjoying the
sequel slightly more than the first movie. It takes every element of the first movie and ups the ante. The ghost attacks are more intense this time round and there's one particularly effective death scene that I had expected to see in the first movie that was worth waiting for.The cast in both movies acquit themselves reasonably well; convincingly conveying a growing sense of desperation as the implications of their situation grow ever clearer. No-one particularly stands out although one actor (not saying who) from the first movie does return for Grave Encounters 2 and delivers a particularly unhinged performance that is a lot of fun. But the star of both movies is definitely the building itself. There's something undeniably terrifying about being lost in the dark, labyrinthine corridors of a long abandoned asylum regardless of whether it is or is not genuinely haunted.
Respected UK film critic Mark Kermode has discussed on
occasion a rule that should (or perhaps should not) be applied to
comedies. The “rule” is as follows. If a comedy makes you laugh out loud more
than 5 times during its run-time it can be considered to have succeeded in what
it sets out to do and can be labelled a comedy. Applying that logic to a horror movie the raison
d'etre of which is to make the audience jump can Grave Encounters and its
sequel be considered a success? The
answer is yes.
I’m not going to suggest that these movies belong in the
higher echelons of the genre amongst the best of the found footage genre
and when compared to non-found footage ghost stories such as, for example, the
brilliant and wonderfully atmospheric Session 9 they come up short. But examined within the confines of the found
footage/pseudo-documentary genre they provide intermittently scary thrills, an intensely
creepy location and most importantly an acceptable number of
effective jump scares. Bring on a third instalment. But only if it maintains the quality and continues to expand the mythos that Grave Encounters 2 started to develop.
OUR SCORES
Grave Encounters
Grave Encounters 2
No comments:
Post a Comment