Fright (Peter Collinson, 1971) - movie review...

Having not heard of it before, I chanced upon this classic slice of British scares on The Horror Channel last week, and was immediately drawn to it as it starred Susan George (most widely known as Amy Sumner in Sam Peckinpah's superb Straw Dogs - which was also produced in 1971).



Susan George plays Amanda, a babysitter hired by Helen and Jim Lloyd (Honor "Pussy Galore" Blackman, and George "Minder" Cole respectively) to look after their son Tara (played by the director's own son) as they go out for the night to celebrate an 'anniversary of sorts'. Cue lots of nicely composed, almost voyeuristic, shots of Amanda making herself at home - a rustic old building of dark wood and haunted memories - all-the-while being stalked from outside by an unknown figure. Already a bit jumpy, she's none-too-pleased when her suitor Chris (Dennis "The Sweeney" Waterman) turns up and starts telling her a tale of how Jim isn't Helen's actual husband ... as it turns out, the real husband went barmy and tried to kill Helen and her son - and he's just gone and broken out of the mental institution he was locked up in!



So far, so famliar right? Well to be fair this film pre-dates the slasher boom (that really kicked off in 1974 with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Black Christmas, but which can be traced back to the likes of 1971's Bay of Blood and 1960's Psycho) and even forms an early template for many of the common structural elements for many horror flicks to come. Sexy babysitter who's adverse to keeping her top done up? Check. Creepy old house? Check. Escaped lunatic hellbent on murder? Check. Nutjob's Doctor who tries the stop the madness? Check. Indeed, you wonder if Ty West was familiar with this film before he made his excellent 1980s homage The House of the Devil in 2009 (which admittedly goes for satanism rather than an escaped nutjob), but even more acutely you could ask the same question of John Carpenter and Bob Clark in that respect, but no matter.

Watching this film 41 years later it's easy to consider it old hat and predictable retrospectively - but if you ignore that and enjoy it as an old school dose of British horror, then it still works very well indeed. There are far scarier movies from the period (for example the downright chilling The Wicker Man), but fans of creepy old houses, the stiff upper lip of the British middle class on film, and the gorgeous and attention-grabbing Susan George, will be well catered for here.

However it's not just a simple fright film - Tudor Gates' script has some nice touches of thematic depth - Amanda is a student of theoretical child psychology and the like, so naturally her night of terror sees her thrown into the deep end of real world mental anguish. Indeed - not to spoil it, mind - there's a nice little moment to tie this plot thread up at the end of the flick which illustrates some deeper thought at play in the script; and even in 1971 the police were being painted as drowning in bureaucratic incompetence. Speaking of which, fans of the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses will spot a young Roger Lloyd-Pack (Trigger) as one of the policemen in the climactic sequence.



So in summary, Fright is an atmospheric old school slice of British Lion/Fantale Films horror that will appeal to fans of an era defined by Hammer Horror, Susan George, and babysitters terrorised in creepy old houses. 41 years on it's not the nerve-shredder that it once might have been, but it is well served by a healthy dose of nostalgia, a solid script, tight direction, and a great sense of visual flair (both in Ian Wilson's cinematography and Raymond Poulton's editing - which pleasingly seems to take a little inspiration from 1969's Easy Rider). If this sounds like your kind of flick, then I recommend you check it out.

Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary...

There are some movies that are timeless. One such example is Back to the Future - and whilst I'm at it, the two sequels are just as timeless as the superbly scripted original. Being that I was only a baby when the first movie hit cinema screens, it was a real joy to see this beloved cinematic classic on the big screen.


Back in 1990 I remember seeing the third movie in the trilogy (but I can't remember if I had seen the second in the cinema, or on video, at that point). Seeing the third movie at the cinema in 1990 is one of my earliest cinema going experiences (I also remember seeing Duck Tales: The Movie either the week before or the week after), and so pretty much for my entire life the Back to the Future trilogy has been there as a truly timeless and beloved classic, sitting beside other all-time, all-life favourites such as Ghostbusters (1 and 2), Short Circuit (1 and 2), and Batteries Not Included.

Fast forward to 2010 and me sat with a grin across my face for those two hours as I relived one of my all-time top ten favourite movies ever on the big screen. The vibe in the theatre was buoyant. Young families were there with their children - kids born after the beginning of the New Millennium - and there was a real sense of quiet, enthralled enjoyment in the crowd. It was like an enraptured hush, punctuated by gleeful giggles at some of the razor sharp comedic lines littered throughout the script.

It didn't matter to these kids that the movie was 25 years old, that it was made in the 1980s, that the special effects aren't up to present day standards - the strength of the script, the performances, and the entire direction of the movie sold it to the audience (new and old alike) with conviction.

In short, this is a popular movie loved by countless millions upon millions across the globe, and being that it hit #7 in the UK Top Ten, it just goes to show that a true classic never dies and transcends technical improvements in the realm of filmmaking.

My point is, there has been a real obsession in Hollywood for years now with remakes. Remakes, re-imaginings, re-hashes and re-dos ... mostly of time-tested, long-standing, dearly beloved cinematic and genre classics. However, no remake of a true classic is ever going to come close to the sense of wonder, loving craft, and fan loyalty that the original embodies.

Surely the entire point in re-doing something is because you didn't do it right the first time around. You don't redo something you've done perfectly the first time, because your effort is only going to be wasted on something not as good - and quite often - something lacking the same 'perfect storm' charm of what was so successful in the first place.

True cinematic classics, the milestones of filmmaking history, were so often the films that were dangerous to make at the time. Films that had no certainty attached to them, no brand recognition, no built-in audience - films that were an honest risk to take in the first place. Back to the Future itself didn't have a perfect take-off. Eric Stoltz was replaced after several weeks of shooting, and before the DeLorean there was a time-travelling fridge. It could have missed the mark by small margin, or it could have been a bit of a bugger up - but no - the money men took the risk, the creative minds focused and worked hard, and forever after the audience has reaped the rewards with a fantastic film experience.

A soul-less remake of something that was done correctly the first time has no risk. It feeds off brand recognition like a parasite, there is no danger attached to the project, an audience is built-in and it's almost a sure-thing to rake in big bucks. What's more, the soul-less remakes - the unnecessary remakes - feed on the cinema goer's innate curiosity, that easily overcomes their preference to hold on to that ten bucks instead of seeing something crap. That sense of curiosity has given the remake factory an endless excuse and a strong revenue stream.

Now, not all remakes are bad - if you're remaking a movie that was never a solid classic or a perfect thing, then you're probably going to be able to bring something new to the table. While I was initially very sceptical about the 2010 remake of George A. Romero's good (but not amazing) The Crazies, I discovered it to be just as good as the original - both versions doing different things better and worse than each other. As such, both versions fulfill different purposes and look at the same scenario with different eyes - the viewer is being given an alternate experience that is actually worthwhile.


Similarly, the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes has a third act which easily beats that of the original movie. Sure, for the most part the first two acts are essentially the same thing, but the remake takes hold of that '1950s nuclear test site' angle and runs with it with conviction to give the viewer something worth seeing in conjunction with the original.


Sadly there are only a handful of worthwhile remakes. The majority are pointless and never live-up-to, nor exceed, the standard of the revered originals. Circling back to Marty McFly's time travelling exploits, there are rumours of a remake floating around - whether it's a load of bull, or whether there is some truth in it, I dearly hope it proves to be nothing but a load of hot air.

Back to the Future - a 25 year old beloved classic - has done well for itself at the UK box office, and it'll kill on the up-coming Blu-Ray re-release. How on earth would a remake have any point to it whatsoever? You can never set out to capture lightening in a bottle, and certainly not with such creatively void intentions as the common remake does. So please, for the love of common sense, cinematic and creative decency - leave Back to the Future alone and focus on celebrating what we have been gifted with for 25 years, and what we will continue to be gifted with in the future.