Heartless

fd · Post by fd » Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:52 pm

I'm genuinely sorry to say that I thoght this was the most cliched, contrived film by far.

"A new type of horror" ? Seriously ? That is either one of the most deluded or arrogant statements I've ever heard.

In all fairness I've tried tio think what I liked and what i didn't about it.
Liked :
- The first song they did on the stage
- The conversation in the bus stop before his mum was burned reallly made me feel something toward the pair of characters
- Sturgess's performance
- The weapons man
Disliked :
- The "Look in the bathroom mirror, close it and the shock comes" bit. Has no-one in the production seen a horror film in the last 20 years to know that's been done to death ? I cannot beleieve that a lot of the audience gasped at that.
- The "Meeting the devil". As soon as he started to get messages on the iPhoen I though "He's lost it and this is in his imagination". Sadly, that cliche proved to be true. Also felt like meeting the Oracle in the second Matrix film.
- The little girl as a guide "concept". Again, felt like it was out of the Matrix films.
- The devil/demon. Barechested with long leather jacket, are you kidding me ? How hackneyed is that ?
- The location. I know the area well, and the fact that you're about 150 yards away from Brick Lane full of media type wankers (no offence

) when you're on that part of Bethnal Green Road made no sense.
- The rent boy. Utterly ridiculous and made any sympathy for anyone completely disappear as I was taken completely out of the film.
- The sudden turning up by his nephew was telegraphed and that plot point was competely contrived

I'm genuinely sorry that I didn't like this as I really wanted to. Maybe watching out of the context of the previous 4 days of horror films, so i know what to expect, may have improved my opinion.

Mind you, at least it didnt; have "My mobile isn't working" to make it completeluy cliched.

(When's the first film gonna arrive with "I can't update my facebook status/tweet" ?

)

edit - meant to add, I'm disappointed that there weren't audience questions just so that French lady could have asked something ......

narcan · Post by **narcan** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:10 pm

Essentially 'Heartless' was Faust with hoodies and strangely it evoked the spirit of Clive Barker for me much better than 'Dread' did.

I enjoyed it enormously however as it progressed the generic nature of the story got more & more difficult to ignore.

As with Melissa George in 'Triangle', Peter Marshall in 'The Horseman',Shaun Evans in 'Dread' & the totally brilliant Sam Parsonson in 'Coffin Rock' Jim Sturgess heartbreaking performance was the real highlight of the film.

Hello Doris! · Post by **Hello Doris!** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:21 pm

Ahhh the French lady was the best! George Romeo anyone?

AnotherSchmuck · Post by **AnotherSchmuck** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:39 pm

Contrived, arty cliched rubbish.

New genre my ass, I don't think any of them were joking when they said this and to the point why joke in this way as it only confuses your audience.

I think the ups and downs of this film are clearly stated here but honestly has anyone seen "Angel Heart" with Mickey Rourke and Robert Deniro? Nuff said really.

This was rehashed trash with a bow on it.

Muffy St. John · Post by **Muffy St. John** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:59 pm

I too thought this film was hugely overrated, it was dull, with another over-explanatory ending.... BORING. The acting was pretty great though, except for the 'Carry On' rent boy!

Tommy-Boy · Post by **Tommy-Boy** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:01 pm

jonbly wrote:
Still, at least we got a new genre of pretension out of it...

dnky666 · Post by **dnky666** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:36 pm

Ridley has not invented a new genre of horror but has with that comment shown his contempt for horror as a genre. I'm assuming that he based his (obviously) encyclopedic knowledge of the current state of the genre on the adverts he sees for films such as Final Destination 3 on the TV. He appears to think that the genre has never addressed social commentary (What about Night of the living dead? The People under the stairs? Or even Drag me to hell?). He appears to believe that we are all stupid and aren't aware of Marlowe or the Faust myth. Heck, he doesn't even think that we watched Dallas and will fall for the "it was all a dream" finale.

If he has invented a genre then it is Upper Middle Class Chav Panic horror. Basically, take the world that you see from the window of your cab as you speed to some arty soiree. Throw in an Evening Standard headline or 2. Make everybody in it a grotesque cipher. The immigrant whore, the 2 characters caught up or previously involved in gang violence. Heck, even the owner of the local shop will sell you guns. Even the main character's own brother buggers off to Paris rather than stay, despite being only to well aware of his brother's fragile state of mind. In fact the only redeeming character in the whole piece is the Timothy Spall character. Over 40? Likes to take arty black and white photo's and waffle on about love? I wonder who he's based on? The artist (or should I say Director) as savior perchance?

Everything about this film is cynical. Brand Ridley so beloved by "luvvies" and serious critics takes on a genre much maligned and misunderstood after years in the wilderness. Casts Timothy Spall as a draw for the Ken Loach brigade, casts Noel "the acceptable face of yoof culture" Clarke as a draw for the kids and for the Daily Mail readers demonises, quite literally, hoodies. As for the demons themselves it's nice to see that the effects unit of Primeval aren't short of work since its cancellation.

At least he did address one charge leveled at horror films. Not for Ridley, the slaughter of large breasted pretty girls by our murderous protagonist. No, he'd much rather be killing a gay man and a black guy. Progress, is a beautiful thing.

Of course the film will be lauded. Ridley is one of those people who in the eyes of the so called proper critics can do no wrong. So, it is only a matter of time before we have an Observer Review article proclaiming that Ridley has indeed saved horror from itself and the sad thing is we have no-one to blame but ourselves. The greatest Faustian pact struck was allowing Ridley and his band of overdressed luvvies/c-list celebrities to piggyback on the back of the festival.

In his review of Antichrist, Alan slates Von Trier et al about the elitist attitude shown towards our genre and quite rightly so. This film, although better than Antichrist, is no different.

Lynch and Greene joked that they had masturbated into the Empire popcorn. But it was Ridley, bounding on stage in his panama hat, proclaiming the birth of a new genre of horror that pissed on horror, the preceding 4 days and every film that over the last 50 years we hold dear.

AdeBrown · Post by **AdeBrown** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:42 pm

narcan wrote:Essentially 'Heartless' was Faust with hoodies and strangely it evoked the spirit of Clive Barker for me much better than 'Dread' did.

I enjoyed it enormously however as it progressed the generic nature of the story got more & more difficult to ignore.

... Jim Sturgess heartbreaking performance was the real highlight of the film.

I agree with this except for the "better than Dread" bit.
Thanks.

Also quite liked the tunes, is this what they call "emo" ?

AdeBrown · Post by **AdeBrown** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:57 pm

dnky666 wrote:If he has invented a genre then it is Upper Middle Class Chav Panic horror....

Lynch and Greene joked that they had masturbated into the Empire popcorn. But it was Ridley, bounding on stage in his panama hat, proclaiming the birth of a new gwnre of horror that pissed on horror, the preceding 4 days and every film that over the last 50 years we hold dear.

first bit: no that was Eden Lake

running for cover as I say that, no need to re-argue the point ;-)

second bit:

dnky666 · Post by **dnky666** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:22 pm

AdeBrown wrote:first bit: no that was Eden Lake

running for cover as I say that, no need to re-argue the point ;-)

LOL

Actually, you're right, Eden Lake did invent that. Another film Ridley hasn't seen. It just slipped my mind. No need to run for cover I feel a lot better having vented at length.

At least I have a new Non horror Director saves the genre film to hate....All you 28 days later fans can finally sleep easy.

Reanimator · Post by **Reanimator** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:24 pm

Agree this is not a new 'breed' of horror, but in terms of the film itself I thought it was very good and one of the best of the festival.

Thought the 2 songs just before the film was a nice idea as well.

MattP · Post by **MattP** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:51 pm

I thought it was very well made, looked great, had great performances and a great atmosphere but the serious pretentious attitude of the director put me off. I mean statements like "this is more than a horror film this is a movie! it will give birth to a new genre" I think that can be viewed as an insult to the genre cos affectively he appears to be saying my movie is above your beloved genre. Some may think well it as a good film and i'd normally be inclined to agree but not this time. Theres no excuse! If you stand up in person in front of devoted horror fans whove seen it all and tell them you're going to give them something new then you better deliver it!

AdeBrown · Post by **AdeBrown** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:02 pm

Aren't the comments here those of the producer before the film?

I did not stay for the Q&A, just in case it was a list of films that producer should watch.

Someone should do a horror film about a film director who thinks his horror film is "not a horror film". Has that been done?

I remember when Wes Craven said it the first time ...

lupogirl · Post by **lupogirl** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:12 pm

I did raise a eyebrow, when i heard about creating a genre. Oh dear!

Liked the thought of the hoodies being some kind of weird reptile. Other than that not anything special. I thought it was a bit overhyped beforehand.

AnotherSchmuck · Post by **AnotherSchmuck** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:14 pm

In the Q+A after the film the Director reaffirmed the twatty "new genre" comments.

AdeBrown wrote:Aren't the comments here those of the producer before the film?

I did not stay for the Q&A, just in case it was a list of films that producer should watch.

Someone should do a horror film about a film director who thinks his horror film is "not a horror film". Has that been done?

I remember when Wes Craven said it the first time ...