I’m not a fan of the current secular, non-religious Christmas trend- but I love the old school classic groups like The Platters. Although this 2002 compilation set Very Merry Gentlemen: The Platters Christmas Legends is indicative of this Ho Ho Ho over the Creche, fans young and old can’t help but enjoy this upbeat, swinging, fifties styled collection.
Here Comes Santa Claus leads off Very Merry Gentlemen and sets the hip, fun pace of the album. It may seem a little juvenile, but hey, what’s wrong with that? Besides, this rendition is dang catchy for the kids to sing along to. Deck the Halls also adds some charm and spin to what can sometimes be a stuffy tune. These two starting tracks are the shortest on what is actually a short, almost fleeting 30-minute set. Fortunately, The Platters keep the music airy and jolly with more tunes like I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus. Usually slowed down to being a little too soft and kinky, the innocence, tongue in cheek, and jazzy nature wins here.
Silver Bells is the first slow rendition presented, and the easy stylings make room for The Platters to hold notes and harmonize as only they can. I’ve tried to research when these recordings were done and which line up laid down these tracks, but I’ve had no luck. It sounds good, and sounds like how we expect The Platters to sound- in the end I suppose that’s all that matters. I don’t know how anyone cannot like them, honestly. Next is God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman,the first of three traditional carols in this largely generically festive set. Though it’s a medieval-esque carol, The Platters step this one up with quick beats and snappy refrains. Can carols be doo-wop? Yes! Who knew?
The Christmas Song slows Very Merry Gentlemen down some again for a nice, mellow fireside evening. There’s isn’t a lot of room for the breakout notes some singers add, but The Platters add in some very pleasant, unexpected ad-libs around this timeless melody. Likewise, We Wish You A Merry Christmas keeps the traditional lighthearted and fun. You just want to get up and do a little jitterbug with this one. Silent Night,however, is as slow and reverent as they can come. All those sweet fifties notes are allowed room to get down and spiritual. In some ways, you need not have any other serious carol on the set if you are going to do a sweet Silent Night like this. A tune like this is usually served best as the final track on an album- sending the evening out on a somber note- but that isn’t really indicative of the total overall vibe here.
Joy to the World continues some of the spirit with a surprisingly slower that usual arrangement. Instead of getting fun and happy go lucky, The Platters take their time with some flute-like harmony. Of course, it’s still a sweet listen and easy sing a long. Some songs you just can’t do wrong. Lastly, White Christmas sends the set out in traditional holiday Americana fashion. One might expect The Platters to go super hip like The Drifters rendition, but they charmingly stick to this bittersweet Irving Berlin ode of the season. Ah, the simplicity of a fifties Christmas!
No, Very Merry Gentlemen is not the best album by The Platters- perhaps nothing will ever compare to my Greatest Hits vinyl collection with all their classics like ‘Only You’, ‘Smoke Gets in Your Eyes’, ‘The Great Pretender’ and my favorite ‘Love of a Lifetime’. Even the title and set editions seem to be a conundrum- ‘gentlemen’ for a group with a female singer? Last year Amazon listed the CD as discontinued, but I was fortunate to find a second hand copy. However, this year it’s back in stock. Sadly, it doesn’t look like Amazon offers individual MP3 downloads from which the new generation can pick and choose either. Several other Christmas compilations from The Platters are also readily available or equally elusive, with repeat songs and varied track listings to haunt a collector. Technicalities aside, this set is great for young families to dance and sing along with while wrapping the presents and yet sophisticated enough for a swanky uptown holiday party. Reminisce and enjoy the season with Very Merry Gentlemen: The Platters Christmas Legends.
After trying my husband’s ear with one too many old time shrill but flat Christmas records, I broke down and picked up the 2007 contemporary Christmas best seller Noel from singer Josh Groban. While I’m not one to normally go along with the current pop sensation, Noel is an easy listening holiday delight.
Although it’s usually a conclusion piece, Silent Night introduces Noel and showcases Groban’s unusual baritone and tenor stylings. The tone of the album is set with this rousing melody- we’re in for an hour of uplifting reverence even if there isn’t a truly fast, swinging tune here. The fine Little Drummer Boy continues the updated but respectful trend. Usually played in juvenile or childish motifs or strangely often sung by women, Groban adds maturity and modern personality while holding true to the heartfelt innocence of this timeless tale. Outside of the old Johnny Cash version, it’s tough to think of a better rendition.
However, I feel bad saying I’ll Be Home for Christmas goes over the top a little too much with the spoken sound bites and military greetings. The song is sad, bittersweet, and sentimental enough, and the album is certainly already relevant enough without adding more sappy and yet somehow political overtones. This song also seems a little too easy for Groban, and the arrangement needs to be slowed down since he doesn’t have enough places to hold a good note or two. Fortunately, the long-winded spirituality is made up in Ave Maria. I like the old school material but this isn’t Pavarotti or the type of operatic orchestration that is sometimes a bit much to listen to- much less be able to sing along with. Groban hits all the notes needed but keeps the Madonna tune tender on the ear. Generally one doesn’t think of such an important song as background music, but the charming softness here is what keeps this album popular.
I feel as if we don’t hear Angels We Have Heard on High as much as we used to- especially outside of church, but this lovely tune isn’t often included in more pop oriented secular albums simply because it’s a tough cookie to sing. Soul singer Brian McKnight joins Groban here in a special duet arrangement that layers and smartly uplifts the song without making those ‘Glo-o-o-o-o-O-o-o-o-o-O-o-o-o-o-O-ri-a in Ex-cel-sis De-o’ refrains get out of hand. Where I’ll be Home for Christmas may have laid the sentiment on a little thick, the original tune Thankful strikes a far better cord of somber seasonal appreciation. The personal yet social lyrics blend wonderfully with Groban’s range. His near cracking heartfelt delivery adds a tear inducing touch, and because this is a new composition, we’re forced to pay attention rather than just gloss over some of the old carols that we seem to increasingly take for granted.
Although it’s tough to go wrong with The Christmas Song, this secular tune is again a little too slow in making room for Groban’s long notes. Perhaps because Noel is dominated by lovely but not so easy to sing carols, it seems as if Groban is meant to be the modern voice of the good old classics. Anybody can sing The Christmas Song really. It’s not that this is a bad version, it’s just we already have so many renditions of it. I’d love to have heard Groban handle another difficult staple like Oh Holy Night instead. What Child Is This is such a medieval styled reverence that not everyone can sing. Groban’s music and arrangement sound of the past, but also updated for today- the Johnny Mathis for this generation. As popular as Noel has become and will continue to be in coming years, I’d like to see another Christmas album from Josh Groban at some point with more lofty carols.
I’m not a country music fan, but I suppose if there’s one person who has the crossover superstar power to match Groban’s vocal, it is probably Faith Hill. Their The First Noel duet does still have a few notes of needless country twang- Hill can hold the note, why does she need to make that little hick hiccup and quiver where none is required? I much prefer the gospel chorus once they join in and ad-lib the second turn of the song with serious spiritual weight. As much as I praise Noel for bringing much needed religious tunes back to the secular world, there is absolutely nothing wrong with belting a carol the way it should be belted. Put an Amen to it!
Petit Papa Noel is probably unfamiliar to most in America, but it’s a beautiful French carol nonetheless and Groban nails it perfectly- again giving a deep operatic weight without reminding us that we’re listening to a serious song in another language. It sounds pretty and Christmasey, that’s all that matters. And really, the French is, in a strange way, understandable on the heart and spirit. Likewise, we don’t hear It Came Upon a Midnight Clear as often as we used to, and that’s just unacceptable. It’s refreshing to hear another lovely carol getting the contemporary but no less reverent update from Groban. You know, I’ve never heard his other albums, and while some may want to follow his discography after Noel, at the same time this album feels like his perfect showcase of voice and soul.
Panis Angelicus adds more of that easy listening international operatic spin. I know it seems contradictory in some cases to mention opera and pop in the same breath, but Groban’s contemporary arrangements are handled by a powerful yet somehow casual voice. Maybe folks just like his voice and style; maybe it’s the album’s unique mix of the updated blended with traditional holiday classics. Whatever you choose to take away from this seasonal chart topper, it is a dang good holiday listen. Lastly, my favorite carol O Come All Ye Faithful bookends well with Silent Night and concludes Noel in fine worship-esque fashion. Again, we expect these tracks to be reversed on such a set, but Groban ends with lovely medieval music and devotional choruses. I would have liked some of the good old Latin, but you can’t have it all I suppose.
Despite a few forgivable hiccups, Noel has increased in sales and popularity for a reason. I’d like to think the album skyrocketed through the charts because it is a largely religious set without some of the heavy handedness or mid-century sounds of traditional Christmas albums. Then again, it could be the easy pop, soft secular, background music sensibilities. Whatever your musical style or beliefs, families young and old can enjoy Noel each and every Christmastide.
I warned you I was on a Michael Fassbender bender. Despite hearing all the praise for his 2008 drama Hunger, I was reluctant to watch this tale of Bobby Sands and the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. I’ve had The Machinist in my Instant Watch queue for months, always skipping over and over it again in favor of something else. I simply don’t like films with sickly, gaunt, skinny, skeletal people. It’s too Holocaust, too Concentration Camp photo to me. I don’t get squeamish over many things, but skeletal people are the one thing that gets me every time. Thus, I left Hunger buried in my Netflix queue and then took it out of my DVD list all together. It came up in my recommendations across the site, and then tempted me silently from my Roku box listings. Even at the video store, its quiet cover taunted and beckoned me! Finally, one night out of the blue when I had plenty of other things to do (too much really) I gave in- sans my usual popcorn. Eating popcorn during a movie about a hunger strike somehow just didn’t seem right.
After fellow Irish prisoners Davey (Brian Milligan) and Gerry (Liam McMahon) endure brutal abuses and inhumane treatments at the Maze Prison, IRA Officer Bobby Sands (Fassbender) decides to end the prisoners’ blanket and no-wash strike efforts in favor of a hunger strike. Despite concerns from his parents (Helen Madden and Des McAleer) and Father Dominic Moran‘s (Liam Cunningham) attempts to convince Sands that this statement will be equally unsuccessful, Sands proceeds. In hopes that his sacrifice will bring about political status for his compatriots, Sands refuses food and medical treatment for 66 days as his body slowly wastes away.
Oh. My. God. Debut director Steve McQueen (No not that Steve McQueen) starts slowly, but certainly makes up for any unusual pacing with co writer’s Enda Walsh (Disco Pigs, Chatroom) disturbing but somehow lovely and non-political narrative. Fast-paced Americans might become hung up on the simmering opening and silent moving shots of seemingly insignificant objects, but these scenes quietly establish the tone, history, and character backgrounds needed to proceed with the tale at hand. Hunger is not about the British and Irish politics or history and issues of the time. I know it seems strange to say that this is not a political movie, but McQueen steadfastly puts a face to The Troubles. Hunger is about a person- a human being at the forefront of suffering. Naturally, this is not a picture for the faint of heart. We begin with naked humiliations, ill uses of excrement, objects in bodily orifices, and if that doesn’t shock you, Hunger gets heavier from there. Americans might be even more surprised that there isn’t a lot of dialogue early on -actually, outside of one major sequence, there isn’t much talking in Hunger at all. Being a visual artist first and foremost, McQueen lets his imagery tell the tale- and yet the supposedly posh guards and dirty anonymous prisoners aren’t all they seem.
I don’t really want to give too much away, as it helps to go into Hunger relatively cold, with only the basics of the history at hand. If you have any preconceived notions about the Hunger Strike, leave them at the opening credits. Were Hunger an American film- every fricking thing would have been over stylized with all kinds of orchestration and supposedly avante garde metaphors and symbolism from the likes of Tom Cruise. Hollywood would have the audience shell shocked with graphic blood, effects, and prison torture ala Saw. While Hunger is certainly graphic, none of that head bashing overabundance and flash is needed here. Everything is paired down- this film looks like it is emaciated and on strike against the glitzy system. Hunger looks realistically bleak, dirty, nasty, and (excuse the pun) bare bones. With plenty of unpleasant but no less intimate prison nudity, hardly any music, and mostly all diegetic sounds, a viewer might almost think this is a documentary, not art.
Well, Michael Fassbender knows how to make an onscreen entrance- and this is certainly not a glamorous introduction. Although he as Sands is the star of the film, Fassbender doesn’t appear until a half hour into the movie. In fact, he probably is only in the ninety-minute picture for a little more than half the time, and again, most of that time is without any dialogue. After the lovely 22-minute conversation halfway through the film, Fassbender returns to the silence for the conclusion of the picture. I don’t want to be a super gushy girl, but this sequence is just amazing. All that’s said is said- in some cases without actually being said at all- and then it’s back to more silent visuals echoing the words spoken and unspoken. McQueen’s visuals and Fassbender’s character balance each other wonderfully, making Hunger a visually based character statement. All the underscored camera stylings strengthen Sands’ onscreen happenings. What are his real motivations for the strike? Which is it, suicide or murder? Fassbender does not make the answer easy- Sands isn’t played as a martyr or messianic historical figure at all thanks to Fassy’s keeping the humanity real. The man really starved himself for 10 weeks for just a measly 15 minutes of movie! Stelios this is not. Fassbender perfectly captures the mundane and monotony of starvation and the silent bodily torment of waiting to die while yet clinging to the hope that your action will sound like the voice in the wilderness.
It’s a good thing Fassbender did this film in relatively obscurity, before he truly hits the mainstream next year as Magneto in X-Men: First Class. Its fitting that we don’t think along the lines of ‘Oh, its just Russell Crowe in prison!’ Blockbuster stars don’t make these kinds of edgy and risky independent films- honestly they can’t since they are so recognizable. However, major stars also have deep enough pockets that they don’t have to bleed art and make films like Hunger. Fassbender- like Bobby Sands- silently states that he has to do this. After toiling on both sides of the Atlantic for ten years and despite notable success in 300, perhaps breakout and/or meaty film offers just weren’t coming his way. Would he have been done with acting if not for this film? You can clearly see in some of his earlier work that Fassbender has skill and loves to do what he does best: act. However, one gets the impression that if Hunger had not been such a hit on the festival circuit and led to scene stealing roles in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and the fallen western Jonah Hex, years from now we might have wondered what happened to Michael Fassbender. He had to go to some dark places to make this movie, and we get to see it whether we like it or not. Up until a few months ago, I really didn’t know who this damn guy was. However, I am continually impressed by his transformative skills onscreen. In interviews discussing Hunger, you can’t help but like his confident and articulate but fun loving German-Irish self; yet in the film, his eyes are so sad and utterly captivating. I can absolutely see why Fassbender has something like eight films lined up in the next two years, and I hope more audiences find him and Hunger. After seeing this picture, you most definitely come away with the feeling that Michael Fassbender can now do whatever the fuck he wants and we should simply buckle up and enjoy the ride.
Though Fassbender steals the show here- this is about him after all- Hunger is not a solo piece. Stuart Graham (The Clinic, Michael Collins) is delightfully stoic as Officer Lohan. We meet his wife and mother; see his difficulty at what he does. It doesn’t make it easy to discern who is right or wrong in Hunger. Is Lohan a bad person because he has such an ugly job? Are the wonderfully unashamed Brian Milligan (Leap Year) and Liam McMahon (Snatch, The Tudors) bad because they are on the wrong side of the prison bars? But of course Liam Cunningham’s (Attila, Dog Soldiers, The Wind that Shakes the Barley) part of the piece is also exceptional. Halfway through Hunger, Father Moran gives the viewer an onscreen representative asking why Sands is doing what he’s doing. It’s wonderfully ironic to have an angry, pissy, chain smoking and embittered priest brought in to sit opposite Sands and discuss matters of the soul. Again, for actors who business is all about how they look and what they say, Hunger is excellent at the simplicity of what we see and don’t outright hear. Were technicalities with timing and limited release dates, campaigning finances, and the stubbornness of the Academy the only things that kept this picture and its performers from Oscar contention? Tsk, tsk.
In spite all the visual disturbia- Hunger has in many ways re-enforced my discomfort with those sickly, gaunt, skinny, skeletal depictions- I seriously enjoyed this film. There is, somehow, a strange viewer joy in the silence of a well-told tale. I’ve been begging some of these fast paced, herky jerky, effects laden films to put away the CGI hysteria and return to the simplicity of pointing a camera at your performers and letting them do their thang. The 17 minute unbroken two-shot here is exactly what I mean. Effects and other technical dressing are just tools in the toolbox, not the entire workshop! No special effects are needed for this wonderfully witty, serious, sad, and natural conversation. It’s not a boring sequence. The actors do move within the frame- and we have to pay attention to the hidden ticks, vocal inflections, heck even the smoking of the cigarettes in order to understand the full meaning of what’s being said. Hunger does not insult its audience’s intelligence. I simply adore the seemingly off the cuff but utterly great and understated discussion about Sands smoking The Book of Lamentations. Many years ago, I did a thesis and taught a course on this poetic chronicle of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in Babylon. While some may assume there’s just a joke in that a good Catholic would of course only smoke a stuffy little Old Testament lament, it’s really an ingenious hint aligning the IRA’s troubles to Biblical mourning and resilience. This is perhaps as political as Hunger gets- and for all our fast-paced American ways; you might blink and miss the philosophical and spiritual smarts here.
All this haunting imagery and analysis on the best and worst of what humanity can do each other, and yet I dare say Hunger is a beautiful film. As I mentioned earlier, it is, of course, by no means easy to watch. This isn’t the kind of film you go through in slow motion for glimpses of Fassy’s wang- so get that thought out of your head now ladies. Hunger is best viewed for its quiet, strike-esque performances, shock, and awe. Afterwards, however, feel free to clear your mind with a pleasant, more mindless viewing of Hex and 300. On some level, you have to try to forget about Hunger just to ease your brain. Fortunately, after numerous festival awards, praises, and international acclaim, Hunger has found its way stateside with a Criterion DVD release and other streaming and rental options. For some, however, the thick Irish language will be tough to understand without subtitles. Hunger is a film you probably have to watch more than once to pick up every nuance of visual and performance- yet it’s not really a film you can forget, quite the opposite in fact. You want to give Hunger another go, but at the same time, you don’t know if you can go through it again. Against my better judgment, I picked up a rental copy of Hunger at my local Blockbuster’s store closing sale. At $8 compared to the $35 blu-ray, it was an offer I could not refuse. Of course, my little cheapy copy doesn’t have the behind the scenes features or McQueen’s commentary like the major release, and there’s a lot of other promotional trailers instead, but I digress. It was a little unsettling making these screen captures, too- freeze framing to snap such skeletal wonders!
Suffice to say, despite its simple title, Hunger is not a simple movie. It’s mode of operation is simple, yes- we have the subdued visuals and performance needed with none of the flare. However, its realistic, human portrayal rings loud and clear- the only thing missing from Hunger is a wider audience. If you’ve read my reviews previously, you know I don’t give this kind of praise to just anyone, and I wouldn’t be on a Fassbender binge without good reason. If you’re not yet a fan, see Hungerand you soon will be.
Looking for something to do with yourself after surviving the horrors of unending holiday dinners, hyperactive family drama, and the fruitcake that will not die? Take in these classic horror hits and worthy recent scarefests.
Antichrist – Director Lars von Trier’s 2009 disturbing and controversial family horror drama opens with a bizarre and unique sex scene/baby death montage and gets weirder from there. Only Willem Dafoe (Platoon) can make dead babies seem so casual- and I say that in a good way! Although von Trier’s distorted cutting, angled filming, and scribbled chapter plates may be jarring to some, these visual cues akin perfectly to the unreliable feelings of distortion and downward spiral that such grievous loss can bring. Cannes Best Actress winner Charlotte Gainesburg (I’m Not There) is a little annoying as well, but then again obviously understandable as a mother who was shebanging when she should have been looking after her child. The altered perception of time, responsibility, and indifference bounces between the leads nicely as we progress towards plenty of violent sex, mental scares, and kinky creepy. It’s all a little uppity considering the dirty subject matter, and certain audiences will definitely be alienated by the material-but the performances here win against the saucier distrubia. Put the kids to bed for this one.
Bride of Frankenstein – Despite its short length, over the top style, and bad science effects, this 1935 Universal sequel is a classic for a reason. Boris Karloff (The Mummy) returns with Elsa Lanchester (Witness for the Prosecution) for director James Whale’s (The Invisible Man, Showboat) stylized tale in the spirit of Mary Shelley’s infamous creation. The theatrics at hand add to the spooky atmosphere and morally ambiguous, hair raising drama and provide plenty of scary hijinks for both young and old. Even the score is wonderful as well, being tragic when needed and even spiritual and bittersweet. Love, tragedy, death, angry mobs, misunderstood monsters- there’s something for everyone here! Long time classic horror fans can always enjoy the great, campy classic quotes and old school iconography. Educate the family while taking in all the subtext, layers, and quality storytelling here.
Child’s Play –If you want to scare the kids out of wanting THE toy of this holiday season, then this is the film! Though dated, some of the 1988 scares may indeed be too much for the super youngins. However, nostalgic folks can chuckle with Chucky’s naughty wit courtesy of Brad Dourif (Lord of the Rings, Dune) and enjoy the more intelligent mystery and suspense aspects here. While the sequels certainly have their ups and downs, Chris Sarandon (Fright Night, Dog Day Afternoon), and Catherine Hicks (7th Heaven) have some fine moments here. Die hard marathoners can continue with Jenny Agutter (Logan’s Run) in Child’s Play 2 or go really crazy with Jennifer Tilly’s (Bound) send up in Bride of Chucky and Seed of Chucky. Child’s Play 3 isn’t that bad, but Chucky run amok on a military base is a bit much, even for this zany franchise.
Trick ‘r Treat – This 2007 pseudo horror anthology is kind of comical- a diminutive pumpkin boy Sam (short for Samhain) pursues naughty Halloween rule breakers? Some segments here are pretty bad, even stupid and just preposterous beyond belief. Somehow, however, writer and director Michael Dougherty’s (X2, Superman Returns) quirky style and lighthearted irony keep these tales- among them twisted school principal Dylan Baker (Kings, Thirteen Days) and seemingly innocent and Red Riding Hood-esque Anna Paquin (True Blood, X-Men) - on the bemusing side. The ridiculousness is actually quite refreshing; especially against other recent horror pictures that try to be sardonic and miss or those copycat sequels and remakes that just take themselves too dang seriously.
The Watcher in the Woods – Although this 1980 Disney thriller might be a little too scary for the super young Santa set, older kids and the young at heart who grew up on this spooky charmer can delight all over again in young Lynn Holly Johnson (Ice Castles, For Your Eyes Only) and crotchety Bettie Davis (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte) as they try to solve the haunting events and disappearances in the forest about their grand English manor. Yes, it’s a little marred by Disney’s influence and maybe some of the events here are a fairly typical now. However, some scenes are still as scary now as they were to me back then. When my mother wanted to frighten me indoors from the woods surrounding our own home or prevent me from staying up to watch an eclipse, she’d yell, “Do you want to end up like Karen in The Watcher in the Woods?!”
EdenLake an Intriguing and Intelligent Horror Examination
By Kristin Battestella
Well, here we go again. I picked up EdenLakebecause Michael Fassbender is in, sure- but it’s also touted as a well-received independent horror gem. Two birds with one stone, I say.
Nursery school teacher Jenny (Kelly Reilly) is unaware her boyfriend Steve (Fassbender) intends to pop the question during their romantic weekend. Unlike some of their posh friends going off to Paris, Steve takes Jenny to EdenLake, a picturesque flooded quarry and soon to be gated housing development. Sadly, the trip gets off on the wrong foot when a local youth gang - Brett (Jack O’Connell), Mark (Jumayn Hunter), Ricky (Thomas Gill), Cooper (Thomas Turgoose), and Paige (Finn Atkins) - disrupts the beautiful beach setting with their ornery dog, loud music, and lewd behavior. Steve confronts the group to no avail, and even follows them into town with a complaint after they spike his tires. When the gang steals their car, Steve and Jenny again confront the kids- leading to escalating violence, extreme actions, and dire results.
On one hand, it would seem dumb that adults can’t handle a handful of kids- why should they bother anyway? Writer and director John Watkins’ (The Woman in Black, The Descent 2) punks are bad news on top of bad decisions and debates about bad parenting. I’ve seen several films about the growing violence, hoods, and youth rebellion in England. Apparently, these stories aren’t that far from the truth, and that’s a scary notion in itself. Sometimes we become so enthralled over our fictitious monsters, special effects, and paranormal phenomenon that we forget the contemporary horrors in our own society. Although there is some writing on the wall at the beginning of EdenLakefor a wise horror viewer (Remember your rules from Scream!), there’s enough interest, realistic surprises, and disturbing imagery to make up the difference here. Yes, some characters make dumb choices, but this isn’t a heroic tale. Watkins keeps EdenLakereal through natural scenery and naturally flawed people. The story and characters are allowed the room needed to develop, building fine suspense and drama in first half hour. The meat of the chase and the uncharacteristic but no less horrific violence keeps the intensity through the middle of the picture, and the gore presented is not at the expense of the plot at hand. Rather than a traditional bloodfest with 20 naked teens getting sliced and diced, Watkins hold true for a wonderfully surprising final segment. Imperfect people make mistakes and bad choices all around, but EdenLakeisn’t comical like the numerous franchise sequels that are inevitably all the same. Instead of unintentional comedy, we have social subtext; a warning of what happens when we take life over the line to our raw, id, sociopath tendencies. The viewer wants to see the victims survive and make it out alive, but once irrecoverable lines are crossed, hope certainly does dwindle! Where does the vengeance begin and end here? Whose wrath is more justifiable? EdenLakecaptures the vicious cycle without pretend monsters. It’s so refreshing to have some frank and smart cinema- especially when it circumvents the expected Hollywood ending.
Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Above Suspicion) is perfectly cast as EdenLake’s firm nursery teacher with a soft spot for the kids. Jenny knows how to handle tough stuff, yet she’s willing to let the little things go. Her transformation from seemingly strung along girlfriend to physical action heroine happens realistically- with gritty dilemmas and a disturbing course of action. The wise audience may expect the pretty blonde female lead to step up the hardcore badass- as seems to always be the case with horror movies with freaky kids. However, the action comes a little late for Jenny and the plot doesn’t travel as we’d expect. Reilly does not make Jenny a superhero. Again, EdenLakecould have turned into a lot of cheap boob shots and flashy stupidity, but thankfully, Reilly keeps the desperate realism and flight or fight response effective. This is not a pretty role, and characters forced into an extreme situations can do very ugly things.
Fallen Angel. Spartan Warrior. Bobby Sands. Despite coming into EdenLakewith such a manly pedigree, Michael Fassbender plays a little bit of a wimp here. Steve has no problems so long as he has his badass SUV or fancy electronics; but he’s quite a prick, making hothead decisions to show off and cover up his true limp fish nature. Make no mistake, Fassbender (Hex, 300, Hunger) looks the yuppie hottie with a cool voice to match, but Steve can’t even get up enough nerve to ask Jenny to marry him. He’s actually more interested in how cool of a proposal he can make. She’ll say yes, trust me. Lady fans can certainly enjoy the first half of this film, with a boxers- only Fassy all wet in a tent by the lake or roaming around the bedroom strutting his stuff. He seems to be having a lot of fun with the part initially, making plenty of charming facial and vocal exaggerations. I can’t seem to find any information on which was filmed first, but Fassbender appears kind of thin and older looking here, probably from his Hunger starvation experience. He’s still muscular and fun for the ladies, but he looks to be balding already-and there are consequences to Steve’s dreamy introduction, I warn you! Stelios begs people, and seeing Fassbender roughed up by these kids is actually slightly amusing and even enjoyable because we can so easily believe his Steve is that much of a louse. I’ve no doubt the wicked youths here are the villains of Eden Lake, but I’ve also hidden a spoileriffic case of examination for Steve’s culpability at the end of this review.
And let’s talk about those youths and all this hard core peer pressure! Are these kids really sadists at heart or is this all a case of really bad parenting? Why do they do it? Jack O’Connell (Skins) does a superb job of giving us the basis of Brett’s wrath while also keeping the character askew with his true motivations unclear. Was it really just ‘boys being boys’ in the beginning? Surely, things can’t have turned deadly over a dog and loud music. Thomas Gill and Thomas Turgoose (This is England) are the weak links of the gang- their conflict over taking part and trying to be cool is also finely done. How far did they intend to take all this? If Brett wasn’t there, would the other kids behave differently? Was it Steve’s aggressive actions that pushed them to this? The hints that this is retaliatory are there (again I discuss this below for anyone interested) but clearly the patterns within the gang already laid these sadistic behaviors in place. Finn Atkins’ (Dangerville) Paige is the opposite of Jenny as the token girl of the group who does nothing but video tape it all. It’s a nice juxtaposition-not just of the cute blonde Jenny and tomboy brunette Paige- but of their ages as well. In a more stable environment, Paige could grow up to be successful like Jenny- but by the end of the film, is that a good thing? The only strike against the frank and scarily wonderful portrayal of the gang is the unfortunately stereotypical Jumayn Hunter (Cherry Tree Lane) and James Ghandi (Dani’s House) as impressionable wannabe Adam. Hunter’s character Mark is merely black and scary- striking the worst of the blows and yet I don’t even think he gets to speak! Poor Adam is bullied as the weak, nerdy Indian kid- perpetuating another stupid cultural divide. I find it sad if these elements are truly representative of youth class lines today. EdenLakeis just rife full with wicked little tragedies of lost childhood and gruesome parentage!
EdenLakealso has its share of onscreen gore and the usual scares or two. The BlackLakePark locations are wonderful as well, but the natural locales are subdued and realistic- along with some of the violence. I don’t mean to sound contradictory- there is some hardcore bloody bits here- but what’s so disturbing is who is doing what to whom. Yowza! The camerawork and lighting style feel like a natural part of the action- and only a completely silly note, it’s nice to see that the actor is actually driving the vehicle! I’m not sure if I like the cell phone, GPS, and Bluetooth plot points here, but that’s the way it has to be nowadays in a contemporary horror picture. This is also not really a dog friendly show at all, and ‘Bonnie’ the dog is definitely not a she; but these quibbles don’t interfere with the disbelief needed for the film. On the contrary, EdenLakequickly puts us in its picturesque but askew world and never lets us go.
I was a little disappointed that the DVD set only boasts a short behind the scenes feature- a commentary from Watkins with more insights on his social horror angles would have been nice. But I suppose we’re lucky to see such a disturbing British piece stateside at all. There are streaming and rental options available, but anyone who has a tough time with thick, localized English accents should stick with the DVD’s subtitles. Fans of the cast and quality independent horror will enjoy EdenLake, though its upsetting storyline is not for kids or prudes. Take in some eye candy and indulge your horror intelligentsia with Eden Lake.
On to the Nitty Gritty!
Please scroll past the screen captures for my finite and spoilerish theories on EdenLake’s bigger picture and social examinations. I couldn’t in good conscious reveal all in my review, but meticulous viewers with questions and ideas of their own maybe interested in this cerebral analysis.
While there are no doubts these kids and their families are some twisted folk with a smorgasbord of budding violence and other latent issues, parts of Eden Lake suggest this final sociopathic act is almost entirely a result of Steve’s antagonism. It’s an interesting spin that adds an intelligent layer of ambiguity to the film.
Is there history on both sides? Steve has been to EdenLake previously- he knew what a great place it was- and apparently, there were no gang problems in his prior visit. Jenny says he was at the Bed and Breakfast Bar not that long ago with his drinking buddies; and Steve admits the place wasn’t as bad with his pals. He seems to know where he’s going in town, but he can’t find his way in the dark. The rowdy folks and screaming little kids are there this time, and Steve wishes the kids would get smacked while mocking the ‘wife beater’ couple. The EdenLake sign at the entrance to the development also has some anti-yuppie graffiti on the back, obviously indicating someone in town is against the closing of the park and quarry in favor of a luxury development. Was a protest against the up-scale plans dismissed for the cha-ching? Or were the townsfolk okay with the new construction until uppity folks like Steve and his pals came to the flooded quarry? What does Steve do and how did he know about this secluded venue anyway? Was he in fact a part of the lake design? When he asks what Jenny thinks of the lake view, she turns to him and tells him the ’50 executive homes’ are missing. Then again, Steven insists EdenLake will always be Slapton Quarry- what was so special about this disused quarry for him?
Does Steve hate kids or have other unresolved issues? He seems irritated when they first encounter Adam in the woods- even frowns that he and Jenny aren’t really alone. When Brett and Ricky destroy Adam’s experiments, Jenny wants to help but Steve says its ‘boys being boys’. He doesn’t mind the mother smacking her son as Jenny does, and his joking manner of the youth violences and arguing couples perhaps implies he understands the family violence more than he lets on. Which side of the boys will be boys bullying was he on as a child? Did his mother smack him or his father abuse him as Brett’s drunken father does? Why does Jenny ask Steve if he’s a man or a mouse before the gang events even begin? Later he protests they will not move from the beach because he and Jenny were there first, but they weren’t were they? Does he want to prove his ego against these kids because they remind him of himself at that age? He thinks he’s cooler than he actually is with all his gadgets and has built himself up a seemingly secure world with Jenny- yet he hasn’t asked her to marry him yet, even after asking her father for permission. Steve just wants things his way-did he grow up in control-as Brett is of the gang-or controlled-like Brett is by his dad? Even after Bonnie is accidentally yet conveniently stabbed (It is very strange that big Steve can’t handle two kids and a knife), he uses the injury as an attempt at the upper hand. Steve doesn’t offer that everyone go together to the vet, he pleads again that Brett give him the car keys and he will take the dog. It is understandable the Brett wants some kind of vengeance at the death of his dog, but what seems to be the breaking point for Steve was the sight of Brett wearing his ‘Ray Ban Aviators!’ followed by Brett’s claim that they were actually fakes. Clearly, Steve is not as well put together as he would have Jenny believe.
Are there sexual undertones at play? When Steve is forced to say something to the gang after Bonnie’s second scare on Jenny, he doesn’t do a very good job- in fact, Paige’s accusation that he is looking at her chest shuts him up. I don’t think Steve and his drunk buddies did anything to the kids on their prior visit- they were probably just assholes joyriding around town, convincing the locals they don’t want yuppie hot rods at EdenLake. However, Steve could have handled the conversation a lot better, and he shouldn’t have touched their radio! Kids talk big, but talk is cheap. We see two implied sex scenes and another make out session between Steve and Jenny in the first fifteen minutes of the movie. What’s he trying to prove by all that action, naughty talk, and ab flexing? Was Steve trying to physically intimidate the gang with his good looks and hot girlfriend? For all that, Steve is, for lack of a better term, impotent against the gang. He’s a grown man silenced by a young girl calling him a dickhead. When the gang finally does leave, Brett insults Jenny by flashing his said dickhead at her. Steve, though sitting up and wide awake but with ear buds on, doesn’t seem to notice this much more grievous (though not as potentially physically dangerous) insult than a scare from a dog. When the gang has Jenny captured and Steve is dead, they could have raped her, but did not- we would have seen it if they had. Why can Brett flash a limp penis to Jenny but apparently not have his way with her? Is his acting out really over some other manhood, latent sexuality, or molestation issue? Brett checks outs Jenny’s chest and has boob posters in his bedroom, but it’s as if he hasn’t yet thought below a woman’s belly button- isn’t that unusual for his age? Why would Paige suggest Steve was casing her- was he? Is she being sexually abused by the parents or the gang and automatically assume he must be thinking the same thing? She objects to Brett’s looking at Jenny with the binoculars, but they don’t seem to be dating. What hold do they have over her? Why is she allowed to merely video tape rather than cut Steve? Are all the males ‘impotent’ and trying to keep their women weaker to feel big?
Why were the waitress and the bartender mean to Steve? The waitress in the diner had no problem being kind to Steve and Jenny until he inquires about the kids. She seems to be joking when asking if the kids ‘terrorized’ them; but when Steve mentions the tire, she becomes extremely defensive, forcing him to drop the topic. Whether it’s his place to continue with the waitress, asking whose parents or kids he can talk about responsibility to is another point as well, but instead of talking to an adult like an adult, he’d rather chase the kids around town in his big SUV. Likewise, rather than circle round to the bartender at the Bed and Breakfast, Steve has to swallow his pride while the bartender takes the order from Jenny. Why won’t the bartender acknowledge Steve? In the camera frame, the bartender has his back to him, seemingly never looking at Steve. Does he recognize Steve’s voice enough to ignore it, perhaps from more bad brew from his previous visit with his friends? Everyone seems to mind Steve’s presence, but not Jenny’s.
Did the gang know Steve had been in their house? I believe they did. Steve steps on something in Brett’s bedroom, breaking it and hurting his foot. He tries to hide the injury from Jenny when he changes into his scuba gear and deflects the entire line of her school teacher-esque questioning by throwing her in the water. When the gang removes Steve from the car accident, it’s his left shoe- the same foot that was injured-that is seemingly lost in the scuffle. Brett almost certainly fed whatever was broken by Steve to his parents, allowing him free reign to stay out that night and steal the car. The revelation that his foot was injured sealed his death warrant. The parents tell Jenny Steve is a ‘sick bastard’ once she is trapped in the house by them, so what kind of spin did the kids put on the tale-something sexual? His going into the house was bad enough. Why did he do it? At the time, we’re more concerned with Steve getting caught-but why didn’t he just go out the side door after Brett’s father came in and walked away, even closing the broken inner door? It seems as if Steve knew the layout of the house- he was looking for the kids and went upstairs to Brett’s bedroom. Had he been there before? At the light when they first pull into town, the kids cut Steve off- did something like that happen in his prior visit? Had he already cased this house? What are the odds that Steve would happen to find the one house in town with their bikes outside it? Why did he need a new vehicle from someone else to go to the lake anyway? Did something happen to his previous vehicle before or was it recognizable in town? Jenny drives the SUV when Steve escapes the house, does he always need to be taken home like a school boy after his escapades?
Were the parents involved all along? I think they did have more knowledge then they let on indeed. After the first day on the beach, the kids could have told the parents about Steve’s ‘checking out Paige’, how he ‘followed them around town’ even ‘spied on them from inside the house!’ They probably let the kids go back for some of the nighttime sounds and stalking and would have thought the stealing of the car harmless. Ricky’s brother knows he is out there and has come to pick him up. He arrives in some sort of work van- not the same one as Brett’s father, implying he must also work and has not been around the home for these events. Ricky’s brother is indeed worried that who’s ever after Jenny may also have harmed his brother. The parents are initially more upset that Jenny has damaged the van and fence- until they receive a phone call about the kid’s deaths. We can tell Jenny goes through the same archway as Steve had, but the yard is now dressed with lights for the party. A party is the easiest way to cover up someone’s whereabouts. If the police ever do coming sniffing around, as far as everyone is concerned, their kids were at the shindig the entire time. Evil Steve could have lured the now dead Paige and Cooper to the lake! Steve also paused over the hole in the door at the house. Was this memories for him, regular drunken behavior from Brett’s dad, or after hearing of Steve’s behavior did the Dad punch the door and allow the juvenile vengeance? One of the women in the house also asks Jenny if the ring is from her boyfriend, then another laughs on the phone that Jenny looks like death. Did the parents hope the kids had killed Steve? Only when they find out their babies are dead do they take it to Jenny. One parent does actually object that this has gone on far enough and the police will be around, but Brett’s father vows they take care of their own- bringing us back to the locals versus the yuppies. Steve has come around EdenLake too many times and caused too many problems. Is his death their small way of ending the yuppie invasion?
What does the ending mean? I suspect Brett is pouting as he goes upstairs not because he regrets one damn thing, but because he’s upset he doesn’t get to finish Jenny off as he had hoped. He’s angry that his abusive dad has punished him and taken away his toy. He deletes the videos and is otherwise content with himself that they got what they deserved. Yes, I believe he is a psycho, but he and his parents find his actions justified. The woman who is initially kind to Jenny, tells her not to worry about the ‘scary men in the house’, already implying they have a hidden hand in the night’s events. I don’t think Brett’s father raped Jenny, but the gentleman who had been getting it on in the bathroom before her arrival follows them in, along with the uncertain parent. All three men seem to symbolize the types of men in the film. Steve seems like he was going to be the go to hot hip guy like the younger man in the bathroom, but Steve was all no action-unlike this man who I suspect did assaulted Jenny. The second guessing dad forced into the bathroom by Brett’s dad is symbolic of each of the men’s weak tendencies, and Brett’s father is the sociopath control freak who intimated everyone else because he can’t control himself. Each is indicative to all of us. We all make bad choices, serious mistakes, and end up doing things we don’t want to do or at best should have handled differently. Even the seemingly cute naming of the dogs as ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ implies all parties are to blame; both sides of our piece have seriously defaulted and are all in this together. The movie’s frank ending may seems confusing to some or simply fresh compared to other horrors with one last scare, but it is actually quite ingenious. Brett got away with it, and so do we. We get away with being wimps with kinky gadgets, parents get away with abusing their kids everyday, and boys will always be boys, won’t they? Seeing Brett’s smirk in the mirror is a final reflection on us, the villain of life, not him the perceived villain of the piece. Despite appearing as the seeming lead hero of the picture, Steve’s mocking tone in answer to Jenny’s questions about the gated construction sums up the film perfectly:
“Gated Community- Who are they so afraid of?”
“Everyone.”
Whew! Either I am a genius too or I just have too much frigging time on my hands and am completely full of shit. What do you think? ;0)
I feel as if we don’t hear Angels We Have Heard on High as much as we used to- especially outside of church, but this lovely tune isn’t often included in more pop oriented secular albums simply because it’s a tough cookie to sing. Soul singer Brian McKnight joins Groban here in a special duet arrangement that layers and smartly uplifts the song without making those ‘Glo-o-o-o-o-O-o-o-o-o-O-o-o-o-o-O-ri-a in Ex-cel-sis De-o’ refrains get out of hand. Where I’ll be Home for Christmas may have laid the sentiment on a little thick, the original tune Thankful strikes a far better cord of somber seasonal appreciation. The personal yet social lyrics blend wonderfully with Groban’s range. His near cracking heartfelt delivery adds a tear inducing touch, and because this is a new composition, we’re forced to pay attention rather than just gloss over some of the old carols that we seem to increasingly take for granted. 
and you soon will be. 
Antichrist 
Bride of Frankenstein
Child’s Play 
Trick ‘r Treat 
The Watcher in the Woods 
. 
