With its origins dating back over 40 years ago, five films in its repertoire, and a string of classic catchphrases, The Evil Dead movies are a certifiable success. Adding to this stellar reputation is Lee Cronin’s bloody and bold contribution to what might just be one of the most beloved horror series. With all the hype and pressure of delivering a horror that lives up to its well-received predecessor Evil Dead (2013), it can safely be assumed that Cronin must’ve certainly felt the heat.
The fifth instalment is not a carbon copy of any of its predecessors. Besides the odd pov camera angle, chainsaw weaponry, and the essential Necronomicon, Evil Dead Rise is totally original, forgoing predictability in favour of focusing its attention on the unexpected, making a ruse out of the whole narrative. With that being said, Cronin throws in plenty of callbacks to classic horror movies, making use of throwbacks to elicit a nod of appreciation from its seasoned audience and to introduce new fans to the delights that await them. The Exorcist (1978), The Shining (1980), and The Thing (1984) are just some of the many classic movies that Cronin sprinkles in.
The film takes the burgeoning concept of reallocating classic movie franchises to the city, hoping to conjure widespread, uncontainable fear. Whilst many Evil Dead fans may have been apprehensive about the big city move, the apartment complex setting makes for a dreadfully claustrophobic atmosphere that suffocates and annihilates every step of the way.
Evil Dead Rise gives way to many nerve-racking scares; there’s certainly an abundance of frights that will have you looking over your shoulder for a day or two and develop a lifelong fear of door spy holes! At the crux of Evil Dead Rise’s success is the film’s toe-curling violence that starts at the very beginning of the film, not letting you have the chance to breathe, let alone enjoy an escapist moment or two. The terror is fast-paced and beyond brutal; the sheer quantity of bloodshed is not just generous but almost entirely repulsive (in the best way possible).
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
“This woman has just cut, chopped, broken, and burned five men beyond recognition – but no jury in America would ever convict her!”
I Spit on Your Grave was considered so heinous, so ludicrously cruel, that it earned its spot as one of the most notorious video nasties that caused a tidal wave of commotion in Britain circa the 1980s. However, whilst it is now a celebrated classic and an iconic exploitation-revenge horror, Meir Zarchi’s career-defining film is still radically controversial.
This quintessential genre film follows Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton), a writer from the bustling borough of Manhattan, looking for some solitude to write her first book. Jennifer’s rented cabin in the rural countryside proves quaint and peaceful until a local group of barbaric misfits line her up for the most disturbing fate. In what can only be described as the unholiest actions, the gang repeatedly assault her and leave her for dead. This simple revenge story is one that is now rather commonplace for many movies, particularly those on the darker side, and whilst this arc has been through its fair share of cinematic cycles, I Spit on Your Grave remains one of the chief instigators of this gruelling subgenre.
Despite the harrowing brutality of it all, I Spit on Your Grave has quite a bold backstory. It all started when filmmaker Zarchi came across a young woman who had been raped in a public New York park. Bloodied and stripped of her dignity, Zarchi helped the woman to the police station in hopes of justice. However, the officers nitpicked her statement by criticising her slurred speech, despite the fact that the attack had left her with a broken jaw and unable to speak. From this moment on Zarchi was compelled to tell a story of such great injustice with a horrific twist that many argue offers a warped sense of vengeance and a bold take on catharsis.
The film’s venom-filled storyline helped infuse Jennifer’s character arc with a level of brutality that oozed throughout the whole film, with I Spit on Your Grave’s cinematic detailing offering covert signalling and interesting gazes that positioned the horror in a rather confrontational perspective. This aspect of antagonising the viewer and making them see the true horror of the crimes completely banished the video nasties’ campaign claims, which included warnings that films such as I Spit on Your Grave were a sadistic “poison”.
Even all of these years later, it’s clear to see that I Spit on Your Grave is a far cry from tempting. For example, during Jennifer’s mistreatment, the camera continuously shifts the lens to focus on the perpetrator’s face at a low, flat angle as if the camera were taking on the victims position – the spectator becomes physically aligned with Jennifer with the assailant symbolically lying atop of the viewer. It is an assaultive and unforgiving lens that does not lend any prowess to Jennifer’s situation. The audience is exploited, they are made to feel victimised. It’s a horrifying fate that forces a reaction of gut-wrenching terror, it is undoubtedly dreadful. Zarchi’s cinematic detailing abandons any suggestion that the film is titillating and encourages similar crimes. Alternatively, I Spit on Your Grave is so utterly cruel that it makes the viewer recoil in shock at the mere thought of such a reality.
And it’s this exact reason as to why I Spit on Your Grave is considered a definitive example of classic horror cinema 45 years later. The harrowing scenes are far from influential, they are in fact so antagonistic that the very thought of it becoming a reality is sickening. Everything from the aforementioned cinematography to the commendable performance from Camille Keaton is what allows this 1970s triumph to be unforgettable. It’s a brutal film that manages to stand the test of time and still inflict filmic wounds upon its audience.
I Spit on Your Grave was eventually given a DVD release with a sign-off from the BBFC in 2001, with the censorship officials enforcing necessary cuts to tone down the now-debunked eroticisation. In 2010, the organisation took another look and admitted that the cuts were overboard, yet they still concluded that nearly three minutes of edits were needed. Just three years ago in 2020, the board were brought back to the table to discuss the infamous film, and yet they still refused to officially release the entire uncut version in the UK.
Despite the rather rocky reputation that I Spit on Your Grave has obtained over time, the film has blossomed into a franchise, with the well-received remake hitting screens in 2010. Over the years, another three movies were made, all detailing the archetypal revenge storyline that Zarchi’s original helped established. With the influx of vengeance horror’s dominating a large part of the genre, it’s essential that we must not forget its ancestry, including films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), Death Wish (1974), and I Spit on Your Grave (1978).
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Coming from the strange and dark mind of Brandon Cronenberg is what is most likely to be 2023’s most lavishly viscous film, Infinity Pool. With its salacious themes and even more explicit visuals, Cronenberg’s latest adventure into the darkest depth of the human psyche has racked up quite a reputation. Countless connections have been made surrounding the film’s similarity to Parasite (2019), The Menu (2022), and even the smash hit TV series The White Lotus (2021-). However, whilst Ininfity Pool takes the satirised elite elements in its stride, the film is so incredibly bleak and crushing that any straight ties to other works are fruitless in describing just how effective Infinity Pool really is.
The film follows Em (Cleopatra Coleman) and James (Alexander Skarsgård), a young couple desperately needing a getaway as they retreat to La Tolqa, a private beach resort. However, instead of the expected rest and relaxation, the trip soon takes a turn for the worse as they come across the mysterious Gabi (Mia Goth).
Cronenberg has that unique talent of creating such a sensual yet complicated atmosphere, bursting at the seams with many metaphors and fleshy symbolism. Infinity Pool transfuses every frame with foreboding dread, making the viewer crave the unfolding terror. The audience dives straight into pure scopophilic terrains by the film’s climax. Further espousing Infinity Pool’s measures of stunning extremity is the film’s somewhat unhinged plot that remains shocking even after a second watch.
As Em and James retreat deeper into the chaotic narrative, the film becomes a tightly wound bundle of absurdity where gut-wrenchingly raw and harsh truths thrive. Infinity Pool is best described as a cinematic enigma that has to be experienced.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Supporting up-and-coming talent is a massive part of what we do here at Dead Northern, so when we received a message from a student looking for an opportunity to review for us we jumped at the chance. We’d like to introduce Hayley to the Dead Northern family.
Without further ado, here’s Hayley’s review of Nightsiren.
Nightsiren is a 2022 Slovakian folk horror film directed and written by Tereza Nvotova. It had its UK premiere at this year’s Glasgow Film Festival. It has won the Golden Leopard Filmmakers of the Present 2022premiere
The film stars Natalia Germani as Charlotte and Juliana Ol’hova as Helen. It film follows Charlotte (Germani) who comes back to her childhood mountain village seeking answers regarding her traumatic childhood. Whilst there strange things happen and the villagers accuse her of being a witch. Whilst at the village she befriends Helen (Ol’hova), the two of them become close friends and try to figure out what happened in Charlotte’s past. Throughout the film Charlotte discovers things from her past were not as she once perceived. She does find answers but whether or not they are what she is looking for is another story. Nightsiren is all about who you can trust and who can’t be trusted.
Nightsiren is based on folktales and how they are still believed in rural areas in today’s society. I’m not sure if the film is based on a specific Slovakian folktale or a culmination of lots of different folktales. The horror comes from not knowing what’s real or not. Are there witches? Is it all in the villagers’ heads? It reminded me very much of The VVitch in that sense. Being in a secluded place with the feeling that you can’t escape and you don’t know who the real enemy is. The villagers themselves add to the horror. They are the ones that are pointing the finger at Charlotte stating that she is the witch. There is a feel of paranoia throughout the film, from the villagers thinking there is a witch within their midst to Charlotte and Helen fearing for their lives.
Nvotova has made a slow burn horror that keeps you asking who the real enemy is. This is the third feature length film for Nvotova. She understands what audiences want when it comes to folk horror. A tale of twists and turns. Nvotova started as a documentary director, this is her first foray into horror. I’m excited to see where she goes from here and if horror is something that she delves into more.
Both Germani (Charlotte) and Ol’hova (Helen) are stand out performances. The way that they grow throughout the film both separately and together. Their relationship is something that is questioned throughout the film. Did they know each other before Charlotte came back to the village? Is there something more between them?
Nightsiren is the kind of horror that stays with you long after it’s ended. It certainly has with myself. What I liked most about the film was that nothing is ever really explained; it just starts and from there you need to figure out what’s going on. This is definitely one for fans of folk horror. Folk horror is a genre that seems to be making a coming back in the last few years. It’s interesting to see where the genre will go in the following years.
In March of last year, Ti West returned triumphantly to the horror genre with X, a brutal tale of rural slasher madness combined with an eccentric dose of eroticism. X was quite the success story, with reviews falling in the film’s favour. Also stirring up the film’s limelight was Mia Goth’s dual performance as Maxine, an aspiring starlet, and Pearl, an elderly woman with a burgeoning lust for life. Both characters were hungry for fame and desire, but what left audiences baffled more than anything was the sheer enthusiasm in Pearl’s persona; she was a force, a powerhouse, and, most importantly, incredibly complex. It arose the question of what or who made Pearl a horrific but inspiringly passionate person.
With what many have described as an Oscar-worthy entry, and one of the best character studies in recent years is West’s latest feature, Pearl, the second in the soon-to-be ‘X’ trilogy. The film takes place in Texas circa 1918, where inside a strict rural farmhouse lives Pearl, a young woman desperate to live the life that glitters after falling in love with the hustle and bustle of Hollywood. With the constant knockbacks ruining her chance of fulfilling her dreams, she finally snaps, and all hell lets loose.
Pearl is truly an exercise in the importance of performance. Just as Jack Nicholson made The Shining (1980) and how Kathy Bates made Misery (1990) quintessential classics, Goth dominates the screen and commands your attention and forces the viewer to fall under her mesmerising spell. With every ounce of blood spilt is Goth’s ability to be quite the anti-hero whilst still being frightening enough to create that typical distance that makes you simultaneously fear and connect to her.
Further carrying Pearl’s impressive calibre is the copious layers of cinematic charm that West mediates throughout. The setting of the rural farmhouse is a boiling pot of sheer terror as the dusty fields turn from camouflaged greens to crimson as Pearl and her murderous antics escalate. The scoring is beyond performative as the orchestral, grandiose strings swell with each fleeting moment. The cinematography and editing is a fierce force that beautifully captures every visceral moment.
Even in the most chaotic of scenes are shown in such an impassioned and earnest way whilst still digging its claws deep into the gritty horrendous psyche of Pearl.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
The finale, the third act, the big reveal. These are all desperately important points in a film that opens the door for renowned reputations and unforgettable experiences to be had. Psycho (1960) revealed that Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) was acting as his dead mother all along, and The Sixth Sense (1999) unveiled that Bruce Willis was in fact a ghost for the whole film – both memorable and commendable. However, amidst all the ghostly apparitions, slasherific slayings, and zombified herds, no other horror makes the viewer as bewildered and utterly bemused as Sleepaway Camp (1983).
Robert Hiltzik’s Sleepaway Camp chronicles one treacherous summer at Camp Arawak. People go missing only to show up dead, bullies thrive amidst the teenage hierarchies, and one young girl reveals a troublesome, horrifying secret.
In the fall of 1982, Hiltzik along with a relatively small crew and an even smaller budget took to a quiet lake on the rural side of New York to film a movie far from tranquil. The production was met with its fair share of setbacks, including the storyboard being completely thrown off via scheduling difficulties, and the surrounding forgery turning into an autumn landscape rather than that summer green they had hoped for. However, just as most 1980s horror movies show, Hiltzik was not put off as himself and the crew slugged through the unpredictable path of independent filmmaking. But the reward was certainly worth it, as 40 years down the line its cult following is continuously growing and fans remain awed at the marvellous gnarly slasher that still instils shock value all these years later.
The film works due to its exceptional practical effects, solid yet ‘unique’ performances, and THAT ending!
As with many films from its time, the post production team were rarely afforded with the luxury of CGI- although as visual evidence supplies, practical effects supremely reigned as champion between the two. Out of all the fantastic effects, two that stand out above the rest are the ‘arrow-neck’ and the ‘boiling pot kill’. Ed French and Ed Fountain, the special effects team, have spoken about the infamous arrow-to-the-throat death, which refuses to rely on cutaways and clever editing to show a sharp arrow piercing through an unlucky victim’s jugular. Due to the duo’s cryptic trickery, it has been heavily debated as to how an effect this realistic and hard to pull off was ever completed in the low budget climate.
As the decades have gone on, the pair have finally revealed their secret. A Mechanical rig was latched underneath a prosthetic neck, hiding a foldable arrow that would unravel like a springboard when hit with a prop arrow, providing the illusion of a clean cut stabbing.
The boiling pot kill showcases a drum of ferociously hot oil being dropped all over an Arawak kitchen worker’s body, creating the most disgustingly graphic burns. French and Fountain pulled off this visceral effect with plaster moulding, heavily piled on stage makeup and sticky gelatine on top to give it that freshly peeled skin look.
Sleepaway Camp is home to two of horror’s most oddest, but fascinating characters – Judy (Karen Fields) and Angela (Felissa Rose). Judy plays Arawak’s resident mean girl, a brutally cruel, beyond bitchy, and impossible not to laugh at character that helps make the film the classic that it is today. Judy is filled with one-liners, with some of the best including “She’s a real carpenter’s dream: flat as a board and needs a screw!”. Field’s cold demeanour and awfully annoying (although deliberate) smirk as she hurls abuse is somewhat equally irritating and entertaining.
Then there’s Angela. Over the years Rose has become a horror icon, with ques lining her stand at every mass horror movie event. She plays her role with such conviction, and not at any one moment does the viewer understand her actions, Angela’s personality is a true enigma. But of course, there’s a reason why Angela is written as a rather empty, sketchy person… She is the Camp Arawak killer.
After the film hits its climax and plenty of blood has been shed, Hiltzik ends the film with a silent revelation showing a nude Angela standing tall with the most menacing of expressions, revealing an unexpected penis that stands out amongst her feminine energy throughout the rest of the film. Before analysis resumes, it is crucial to highlight the film’s criticisms. Upon its release 40 years prior, many have noted that Sleepaway Camp can ensue a message of trans people being violent simply because of their make-up. However, the contemporary perspective has allotted Sleepaway Camp as being a welcomed, queer-coded film that instigates an important conversation.
Sleepaway Camp’s opening illustrates a fatal incident, with two men, John and Lenny, taking John’s children (Angela and Peter) on a boating trip, which results in a boat crash leaving only one of the offspring alive. After the event, the tragically orphaned ‘Angela’ is taken in by their odd Aunt Martha, who seems suspicious but fairly caring. The third act reveals that the surviving child was not Angela, but instead Peter. Martha did not wish to care for a boy, she wanted a little girl, leading to Martha raising Peter as his dead sister Angela.
Sleepaway Camp is rooted within the tragedy of forced gender dynamics, placing Angela (actually Peter) in a body that they do not wish to conform to. The film speaks of the horrors that come from misgendering, and the trauma inflicted on youth who are forced to live in a gender that is socially placed on them. Whether Hiltzik initially interpreted the film to compose such a message, what matters is that from a retrospective view, the queer community has taken the horror film as an important piece of cinema that touches on canonical and wrongly tabooed subjects. Sleepaway Camp was ahead of its time, and it has finally reached a place of acceptance where its recaliment stands for something that rightfully means an awful lot to many people.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Only a year has passed since audiences have heard Ghostface say “what’s your favourite scary movie?”, yet for fellow Scream fans and keen slasher-seekers, the latest addition to the franchise has been a long time coming. But was the wait worth it?
When it comes to the world of Scream, nearly everything has been said and done, and many fans have been apprehensive that the cycle is nearing its full circle. However, whilst spoilers narrow an all-revealing response, it can be assured that Tyler Gillett and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin deliver a hefty punch of nail-biting tension, with the thrill factor at an all-time high.
Scream is intrinsically woven with Woodsboro, the seemingly cursed town. However, just as the early days in the franchise sent the Ghostface-fighting crew on a state crossing mission, Scream VI sets its eyes on the city sights as the latest string of victims takes to ‘The Big Apple’. The New York setting both ups the ante and adds a whole new level of existential nihilism to the mix, stripping the ease of containment away. In Woodsboro, Ghostface was confined; somewhat unable to tread fear into wider paradigms. With Bettinelli and Gillet spinning a modern flare on the antics, Ghostface is unbelievably stringent, violent, and more frenzied than ever. In fact, it would not be a far cry to say that Scream VI is the bloodiest film of them all, with every kill being utterly brutal and beyond capable of making every viewer wince.
In its purest form, the world of Scream is a big whodunit mystery, a hardcore version of ‘Guess Who’, where we use the characters as pawns to root out the evil force within the group. And don’t forget the main rule of this cruel pastime – it’s always someone you know… Speaking of filmic traditions, Scream VI is literally plastered with horror easter eggs and nods to genre greats, with references to Psycho, The Babadook, Ready or Not, Giallo, Friday the 13th, The Ring, Argento, Peachfuzz, Carpenter, and of course all of the previous Ghostface killers.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Grab some popcorn and get comfortable because In Search of Darkness is back!
In Search of Darkness Part III is here to rightly resurrect the 1980s and discuss all things slashers, splatters, and sleaze-fests, digging into what many would describe as the golden age of horror cinema.
In the 1980s, horror movies were blood-ridden and sheer full-throttle rides into extreme horror, taking the exploitation factors seen within 1970s grindhouse flicks and the desensitised sensibilities that were on the rise during the eighties to create films oozing with sex and violence. The subtext during this time was feral. The UK was up in arms with the video’s nasty panic, and the public was hungrier than ever for violent feasts. In Search of Darkness perfectly captures all of this with an energetic discourse that keeps the 5hr 38min runtime refreshing.
The segments follow in similar succession to its predecessors, allowing each year within the decade to be easily accounted for. Joining the dense sequences of film explorations are the stellar interviews that accompany each section and offer a range of experts’ and aficionados’ opinions on the genre greats from the decade.
The sheer beloved devotion that the documentary shows is a dedication to horror cinema, almost like a bloodied love letter to all things slashers that interestingly enough refuses to gatekeep the decade’s work to its original fans. In fact, In Search of Darkness welcomes new viewers and curiosity-seekers with open arms, abandoning the harsh mentality that younger generations only flock to the latest blockbusters and jumpscare-ridden frights.
Each segment, whether it’s cataloguing the greatest horror villains of all time, describing the most horrific death scenes from the classics, or revisiting the outstanding practical effects of the decade, every minute is covered by the best experts in the field. It will be of no surprise to anyone who is a keen viewer of the previous documentaries that Part III includes the notorious legends from horror cinema, including the likes of John Carpenter, Robert Englund, Barbara Crampton, Joe Dante, Linnea Quigley, Felissa Rose, Caroline Williams, Tom Savini, Bill Moseley, and Tom Atkins.
In Search of Darkness Part III is an encyclopaedia of 1980s horror that belongs on every horror fan’s radar.
Catch ISOD 3 right now on shudder, or order the physical release this via CreatorVC.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
In M. Night Shyamalan’s latest hit, patience levels, the boundaries of fact or fiction, and one’s very belief systems are tested. Knock at the Cabin valiantly hits where it hurts the most, where even the most sardonic of viewers will be left in floods of emotions.
The film follows Eric (Jonathan Geoff), Andrew (Ben Aldridge), and their daughter Wen (Kristen Cui), as they embark on a tranquil getaway. However, when a group of strangers arrive and ask for the impossible, their harmony soon becomes a fight for survival.
Knock at the Cabin may utilise a small cast and setting, but the performances are far from compact. Whilst every character shines within their roles, particular attention has to be paid to Dave Bautista, Alridge and Geoff, with each of them providing a dense, intimate portrayal of humanity on the brink of erosion. The portrayals of the anxious, on-the-edge group enhance the overall emotive tone of the film, literally commanding attention and forcing the viewer into becoming emotionally invested.
Further infusing the film’s tonality with a sense of lingering dread is the overall look of the film. Cabins are no stranger to horror, they go hand in hand, particularly in an isolated, rural location where no one can hear you scream. Except, what Knock at the Cabin does differently with the trope is that it refuses to simply rely on seclusion alone. Shyamalan chooses to additionally focus on the claustrophobic aspect of the setting. When Eric and Andrew are faced with a group of strangers telling them that tragedy is near, the vast surrounding forests are no longer open and vacant. Instead, the high trees act like a giant gate and the warm cottage transforms into a dungeon of sorts.
There is no escape and there is no redemption in finding brief capacities of freedom. In its most simplistic terms, the film truly roots its horror within the transformative nature of the script. What could be considered peaceful is made eerie, and what could be considered chilling is turned homely. And as with any Shyamalan film, expect the unexpected.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
Skinamarink has ruled the horror scene ever since its premiere at the festival fun last year, with many flocking to the web to bellow endless praise over creator Kyle Edward Ball’s debut feature film.
In what can only be described as an experimental film that relies on psychedelic exteriors and eerily sinister dramatics, is Ball’s personal account of fear, particularly the fear that sows its seeds into one’s psyche at an early age, and just manifests, adapts, and worsens as time goes on. As a guide for Skinamarink’s rooted terror, it is worth noting that in order for Ball to get right down into the nitty gritty of horror, he would ask via his youtube channel for audiences to comment on their worst nightmares, which often would stem from the boogeymen and monsters under the bed that we dream-up during childhood.
Skinamarink was born from Ball’s curiosity into fear, and more importantly, everyone’s fear; leading to a thoroughly fleshed-out understanding of how to scare an audience.
The film follows two children who upon suddenly waking up during the night discover that their father is missing and their house is now barren.
Skinamarink clearly works on a simple scale, with the story itself not bearing ludicrous, overdeveloped plot points and turns, instead Ball sets up a modest scene and allows the camera to take over and our imagination to run wild amidst the rather lonely, cold exterior.
Skinamarink employs the slow-burn route, taking sometimes excruciating amounts of time to build a chilling core that grapples with a harsh soundscape with classically sinister and gothic imagery. However, although the film has a ubiquitously atmospheric aura, Skinamarink certainly is not to everyone’s tastes.
Much of the criticism is mediated from the ‘obvious’ scares. Whilst keeping this as discreet and spoiler free as possible, many of the heightened moments focus on the aspect of a ‘forced scare’, akin to an updated, predictable jumpscare. But is there such a thing as an effective horror film that remains unquestioned?
It’s certainly a film that is going to create an interesting dichotomy. For some it will sow its seed deeply and for others it will be an entertaining watch and that’s it. I side with the former; it’s a brave expedition into white knuckled terror, taking both contrasting subtlety and outlandish subtexts to infuse a ghostly haunting tale of pure nightmare fuel.
Want more top horror lists and reviews? Check out our blog here..
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are dead happy with it.OkNo
