House at the End of the Street (2012)

House at the End of the Street. It reads like a placeholder title, doesn't it? Something lame and basic that gets replaced when they get round to thinking up a better title. Except, they didn't. In a way, it's appropriate because this really is a placeholder of a film. It serves no purpose other than to waste time. It doesn't shock or scare; it doesn't excite or intrigue and it certainly doesn't entertain or inspire emotions of any kind for that matter. It's the most formulaic, derivative, by-the-numbers, clichéd film I've seen in a very long time. But then again, with a title like House at the End of the Street, how could it not be?

Jennifer Lawrence is Elissa Cassidy, a seventeen-year-old girl who moves from Chicago to the back end of nowhere with her mom Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). They're renting a house that was only in their price range because of what happened in the house next door a few years ago: a disturbed young girl, Carrie-Ann, murdered her parents and disappeared. She is believed to have drowned in the lake but the resentful locals, angry that the incident drove down their property prices, mutter that she may be living out in the woods. The house is presently occupied by Ryan Jacobson (Max Theriot), Carrie-Ann's older brother, who was staying with his grandparents when the murders happened. The local parents hate him and the local kids mock and bully him. Enter Elissa, who takes a liking to him because seemingly the only other guy in the area is Tyler Reynolds (Nolan Gerard Funk), who's not just a dick but a dickhole (yes, that is an actual line of dialogue). Her mother doesn't like her being around Ryan, he acts weird, blah blah blah. Can we just get to the interesting bit, please?

Well, no. Most of the film is spent on this mind-numbing, often cringe-worthy story that's like something lifted from a made-for-TV romantic drama. Interspersed with occasional efforts to make the viewer jump, it makes for a very disjointed film and incredibly jarring watching. Said attempted scares are sloppily handled and lack any tension whatsoever. The only half-decent jump in the entire film is, naturally, a false one. Does this film have nothing going for it?

Yes. It has Jennifer Lawrence. House at the End of the Street was made way back in the middle of 2010, but when Lawrence was cast in X-Men: First Class and then The Hunger Games, the producers decided to stick this film on a shelf for two years and then release it shortly after those two came out, so as to cash in on her new-found star power as much as possible. In fact, I remember seeing trailers for the film that advertised it as starring "The Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence". So, given that it was made over two years before it was released, you can't really question Lawrence's motivation for appearing in it. Winter's Bone had only come out a few months before it was shot and her Oscar nomination, yet alone her future global superstardom, was a long way off yet. She was a (very) young actress, it was a role and she took it. Despite that, she gives nothing less than a full-throated performance. She is easily the best thing about this film and even if there's no joy to be found in the rest of the film, it's fun to watch her get put through her paces. Oh, and the last half hour, when she runs around in a white tank top, is pretty fun too. But that's it.

Without Jennifer Lawrence, there would be nothing to recommend here. As it is, there's just very little to recommend here. Replace her with some random actress and it'd probably get a 2. She earns the film another point all by herself.

A very bad film with a very good actress stuck in the middle of it.

3 out of 10.

Hostel: Part III (2011)

Some sequels are what you might call "SINOs" or "Sequels in Name Only". It happens quite frequently in the horror genre - a successful film or series of films have low-budget follow ups with none of the original characters or settings (ie: Halloween III: Season of the Witch) and for the most part are churned out to go straight-to-DVD. That's pretty much the case here with Hostel: Part III, as it was for that other sequel to a successful Eli Roth film, Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever. As with the sequel to Cabin Fever, Roth has no involvement here. Instead, the reins are handed over to Scott Spiegel, who co-produced the first two films. The only thing that makes this film recognisable as a Hostel film is the presence of the "Elite Hunting" club. And even then, the link is pretty tenuous. In the first two films Elite Hunting were based in mysterious Eastern European countries, where no-one notices you go missing and the authorities look the other way. Unsuspecting American tourists are abducted and then sold off to be tortured, eaten, killed and subject to whatever else the customer can think of. The idea plays on that fear of travelling to the unknown, particularly to an area such as the former Soviet Bloc. What made it really scary was just how plausible it was and it was a decent commentary on both the situation in said countries and of the paranoia of tourists. The third film transports the action away from strange foreign lands. In fact, Hostel: Part III is set in... Las Vegas. It's about as far removed from the first two films as you can imagine.

The story centres around four friends: Scott (Brian Hallisay), Carter (Kip Pardue), Justin (John Hensley, a.k.a. Matt from Nip/Tuck) and Mike (Skyler Stone, who looks a lot like Alan Tudyk). The four are on Scott's stag do in Vegas and everything's going fine until Mike disappears. So basically it's Hostel meets The Hangover. After half an hour of the four of them gambling, drinking and travelling to a club in a deserted backwater, Mike is kidnapped. Thank god because he's the annoying one. Well, they're all annoying really but Mike's the really annoying, obnoxious one. Groom-to-be Scott is the bland one, best man Carter is the douchebag and Justin is the "sympathetic" one, although that's played up so much and he's such a buzz kill that he just comes across as patronising. They even give him a walking stick to try and make him even more sympathetic for goodness sake!

Anyway, Mike is kidnapped and taken to a room and strapped to a chair to be played with. Then the film deals its Joker - instead of him being tortured in private, he's put on display and tortured in front of other customers who proceed to bet on things like what weapon the torturer will use and how he will beg for his life. It's an interesting take on things but it doesn't really work. Turning the killing into a spectator sport drains the scenes of any tension. Watching onlookers cheer and enjoy drinks served by scantily-clad (and I mean really scantily-clad) women makes it less like peering through the window as a sadistic killer toys with his victim and more like watching some extreme reality show. Secondly, above all else, the Hostel films are best known for their realistic and extremely bloody torture scenes. Unfortunately, the budget is so low for this film that there's hardly any blood whatsoever. Someone has their face cut off but there's less blood than when Sean and Christian give someone breast implants on Nip/Tuck. Other death scenes include: choking on cockroaches (what is this, I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here?) and being shot with a crossbow. Yeah, seriously. It's as lame as it sounds. Combine these two factors and the end result is that the film sucks. The death scenes aren't gory enough to be enjoyable when an annoying character dies and they're not dramatic enough to make you care when a less annoying character dies.

The stupidest moment comes late on in the film. As one character is about to be tortured, management decides to release the victim from his bonds. This begs the question: just how do the viewing customers feel about this? The member has paid handsomely for the privilege of this person being kidnapped so they can torture and kill them and now, despite their membership and their money (this person is a top-tier customer), the club decides to give their victim a sporting chance. Bizarrely, rather than being worried and disturbed by this, concerned that they too could be betrayed for the pleasure of other watching customers, the live audience laps it up. Had I been there, knowing that the club can turn on its paying members just as quickly as it can unsuspecting members of the public, I'd have made my excuses and left! Seriously, how do they expect to sustain this business model when they quite willingly use their own members for sport?!?

Logical inconsistencies, the lack of tension, annoying characters, silly deaths and the general lack of blood and gore aside, this is really just a low-budget thriller. And not a very good one at that. It's not all bad, though. There are a couple of good moments, including the opening scene and Playboy playmate Cassie Keller, who serves drinks in barely more than two pieces of ribbon, but it's not enough to dredge it out of the stinking swamp of mediocrity. If you're looking for torture porn, you'll be disappointed. If you're wondering what happened to Beth after the events of the previous film, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for a competent thriller, you'll be disappointed. Honestly, I can't see who this appeals to other than completists who want to see all the Hostel films. Even then, you'll still be disappointed.

Not awful but with nothing to recommend it and nothing outstanding about it, Hostel: Part III is a pretty pointless film.

3 out of 10.

A Lonely Place to Die (2011)

It wasn't until after I watched A Lonely Place to Die that I realised that the only films of Scream Queen Melissa George's that I've seen have been her horror and thriller films - The Amityville Horror, Turistas, WAZ, 30 Days of Night, Triangle and now A Lonely Place to Die. There's not much you need to know about it before you watch it other than that it's a thriller about five people who go hiking.

First of all, I must say that the cinematography is simply wonderful. The opening scene, with its sweeping, bird's-eye view of the Scottish highlands is superb and the action, with Alison (Melissa George) and her friends Rob (Alec Newman) and Ed (Ed Speelers) rappelling up the side of a mountain draws favourable comparisons with the opening scene of Mission: Impossible II. The three head off to their cabin to meet up with couple Alex (Garry Sweeney) and Jenny (Kate Magowan). After a night of drinking and card games in their cabin, the five head off into the mountains, hiking through woods and across streams as they go. When they pause for a break, Ed heads off for a piss and hears what sounds like a distant, echoing voice. They spread out and Alison finds a pipe sticking out of the ground. From that moment on, their holiday is turned upside down.

Digging into the earth, they uncover a lid, which they pull open, revealing a small box with a little girl alone inside it. Terrified, the girl cannot speak a word of English and the group have no idea what to do. Eventually, they decide to split up. Alison and Rob, the best climbers, head off on the most direct route to the nearest village while the other three take the girl with them on the slower, safer route. Rob and Alison rappel down a cliff in a scene reminiscent of the opening scene from Wrong Turn. It's nerve-jangling and has a fantastic twist in it. Meanwhile, the others hike their way across open country. Two men in camouflage gear draw beads on them with their rifles but an excellent bait-and-switch sees them taken out by the men who are really tracking the group, led by Mr. Kidd (Sean Harris, who plays Micheletto Corellla in The Borgias). Alison changes course and heads off up the river and meets up with the others just as their pursuers find them. From the river, they sprint through the woods, still pursued, until they finally lose them. This is the hour-mark and what a fantastic hour it has been. Wonderfully shot and truly gripping. It's just a shame that the following thirty-nine minutes can't match it.

We're properly introduced to two new characters, Darko (Karel Roden) and Andy (Eamonn Walker), who are also trying to track down the girl, but for different reasons. The survivors finally make their way to the village and they go to the police station. There's a carnival on and only one old policeman on duty so they have to wait. Suspicious, they wonder if they should make a break for it. At the same time, Darko and Mr. Kidd meet each other in the village pub. It's a very strange scene and it completely lacks any resonance and feels very out of place with the fast-paced thrill-ride that the film has been up until this point. It's almost as if the film takes a break, pausing to introduce a completely divergent plot line. It serves only to make the film meander to its conclusion rather than barrel into it, full-throttle. It's a shame because when the end does come, a brutal and uncompromising one, it jars and feels tacked on, something the filmmakers would not have been hoping to achieve.

A film of two halves; the first is fantastic, right up there as one of the best thrillers of the last ten years and the second is a disappointing about-turn. The film pretty much comes to a screeching halt and we're forced to wait for the resolution while two characters we barely know and have no emotional attachment to have a chat in the pub over a pint. That aside, the film itself is gorgeous, wonderfully shot against the contrasting backdrops of the majestic Scottish highlands and a fiery night-time carnival in the streets of a little village. Melissa George is her usual excellent self, giving her character absolutely everything and throwing herself head-first (sometimes literally) into the action.

All in all, A Lonely Place to Die is a very good thriller with some exasperating faults. Don't see this as anything less than an endorsement of the film, however, because I would certainly encourage you to check it out.

7 out of 10.