Skip to main content

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House
(1973)

(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobwebbed production values have much more in common with Hammer than the decade’s incoming new wave of horror. The characters are stock types and the cast is at least half-comprised of faces you’d consider traditional choices (stage actor Clive Revill; Roddy McDowall, whose rare appearances in the genre belie the feeling that he could be a natural successor to the likes of Vincent Price and Peter Cushing). Director John Hough, an ITC veteran, worked on The Avengers before moving into films; his sophomore effort was Hammer’s Twins of Evil (a guide to the general sensibility showing here). Cinematographer Alan Hume was both a veteran of The Avengers and numerous Carry On… films, and several of the small cast (Peter Bowles, Michael Gough, Ronald Culver) and producer Albert Fennell worked on the series too. This is a film produced out of the background of traditional British film and television; it was never going to be ground-breaking.


And yet Hell House ought to be seen as a post-Hammer piece, with one foot trailing in the past as it nurses a contemporary setting and approach to its subject matter. As such, it distinguishes itself from typical Hammer or Amicus fare (be it period vampire movies or portmanteaus) in certain significant respects . Prolific writer Richard Matheson provided the screenplay, based on his novel Hell House. He also wrote the screen version of The Devil Rides Out, five years earlier. There are some tonal similarities between the two films, but Devil’s main claim to fame, as good as it is, comes from the twist of casting Christopher Lee as the hero. The investigation of a haunted house formed the basis for the earlier (and much better regarded) The Haunting (1963), itself based on the 1959 novel The Haunting of Hill House. Nigel Kneale’s The Stone Tape, made by the BBC in 1972, took a low-key, no-frills approach to investigating psychic phenomena (although it wasn’t quite so restrained in some of its characters’ reactions). So it’s not as if this was fresh territory. And Matheson has little interest in the rigours of scientific inquiry, merely the trappings; his language is rarely more than jargon (be it physics or supernatural).

But the semblance of verisimilitude goes a long way. The subtitled reminders of time and date punctuate each incident at the house, lending the appearance of a scientifically documented, procedural approach. It also serves to heighten the atmosphere; every time we are updated, we expect an event to occur imminently, even if one does not (Stanley Kubrick would employ this device to surreal effect in The Shining). And the sound design of the film is a clever and creepy, courtesy of former BBC Radiophonic Workshop co-conspirators Delia Derbyshire and Brian Hodgson (surely an influence on John Carpenter). The divide between sound effects and music is never all together clear and their sonic contributions are immeasurably important in punctuating otherwise fairly hackneyed, or even slightly silly, signs of spooks (slamming doors, smashing crockery, gusting winds). The ominous electronic heartbeat that introduces us to the house informs us of both its living nature and the repressed sexuality that will drive events.


Admittedly, anyone discovering Hell House today will probably level the charge that it isn’t very scary. I’d be hard-pressed to dispute that the attack on Florence by a possessed moggy is anything less than unintentionally funny. But, when it comes to the requirement for palpable scares, I may have different criteria for judging horror movies to others. It’s a genre I tend to approach selectively (such that certain subgenres will find me. If the premise is a strong one, the horror need not be overt; the aforementioned The Wicker Man is a good example of this. Hell House is unlikely to have you on the edge of your seat, but there’s something very seductive about the psychic investigation format, the faux-realism of the date and time stamps informing us of the team’s progress, the trad-horror trappings of a gothic mansion besieged by billowing fog/dry ice and the ominous electronica on the soundtrack. These elements furnish it with the glow of a movie that could have only been produced at this point in time and, depending on your disposition, you will just as feasibly embrace the result as ridicule it.

And the counterbalance to potential disappointment over the lack of frights is that the film is enormous fun. From the rudimentary poltergeist effects to the dedicated investigators assuming expectedly adversarial roles based on their disciplines, Hell House manoeuvres through familiar territory to a thoroughly daft final reveal.


At the request of a dying millionaire, physicist Lionel Barrett (Revill) investigates a famous haunted house that was once lived in by depraved “Roaring Giant” Emeric Belasco. Barrett’s wife Edith (Gayle Hunnicutt), mental medium Florence Tanner (Pamela Franklin) and physical medium Ben Fisher (Roddy McDowell) accompany him. Each will be paid £100,000 for their troubles, but they have a limited period in which to assess the house (the five days leading up to Christmas – a curious choice as there is no apparent relevance in the film, although it seems there is in the book). Fisher is the only survivor of a previous investigation in which eight people died.

The oppositions are established almost immediately. Lionel, the scientist, appears to be the lead, the her-type, despite being sceptical of theories concerning “surviving personalities” and “controlled multiple hauntings” as suggested by Florence, the second lead. He does not deny the effects of the phenomena (be it the movement of physical objects or ectoplasm – which he pronounces as the organic externalisation of Florence’s thoughts) but claims that it amounts to  “mindless, directionless power” of an electromagnetic nature. He’s even brought a whacking great machine with him, which, once assembled, will suck all the unwanted energy from the mansion. During the early stages Ben takes a back seat to the debate on beliefs, while Edith seems like a fourth wheel.

So one of the pleasures of the film is that expectations concerning the characters are subverted. We expect either Lionel or Florence to be proved correct, so the eventual reveal that both are wrong comes as a surprise. And it may not be a twist quite of Psycho proportions, but I doubt that anyone going in would expect the survivors to be Ben and Edith. Ben stands out as reticent, fearful, bookish and bespectacled (with milk bottle goggles that enlarge his eyes significantly); a weakling. He’s exactly the sort of character ripe for a nasty demise before the first act is over. And the stirrings of repressed sexual desire in Edith make her a similar likely target (any woman getting all sexy doesn’t usually stand a chance).


But it turns out that Lionel is not just scientifically detached, he is also emotionally remote (he slumbers while Edith lies awake, her desires unsatisfied). His inability to entertain ideas outside of his comfort zone ultimate leads to his death. His reaction to the machine registering energy once more (“I don’t accept this. I do not accept this”) is the character’s signature moment, and the last thing he says. You wonder that he allowed his wife to join the party, and the initial reluctance he expresses in this regard is one of the few moments that sets his blinkeredness in relief. Florence is afflicted in a different way, too open and credulous towards what she believes the spirits are telling her until it is too late. It’s a refreshing twist that the battered underdog (Ben) emerges as the hero, and not by proving he is a man through some clichéd macho feat but by confronting his fears.

Revill brings an air of starchy certainty to Lionel, quite unlike the fun he was clearly having in Modesty Blaise a few years earlier. His shock at the sight of Ann flaunting herself at Ben is the one point where he shows weakness; his Achilles’ Heel. Matheson’s novel was more pronounced in exposing the Barretts’ marriage problems (Lionel had directed all his passion into his work, was afflicted with a limp as a result of polio and was impotent), as it was generally with the libidinousness. As the adaptor, Matheson removed much of the overt sexual content (citing producer Stanley Chase’s objection that orgies would seem passé to a modern audience; this seems a remarkably clueless assumption, although that’s not unknown with producers). It’s questionable whether the film suffers from this restraint (it was a PG in the US, somewhat surprisingly - although, maybe not given the general slackness in censorship at that time - and an X in the UK). A strong erotic undercurrent runs throughout; making it more overt might well have unbalanced it as much as the indiscriminate sex and nudity did in the later Hammer fare.


Florence’s invitation to (what she believes to be) the spirit of Belasco’s son to make use of her is unsettling enough without the need to go as far as the novel. Franklin’s performance is easily the standout; she’s a beguiling presence, so earnest and commanding that you believe her until told otherwise. She made her debut in another ghost story, the masterful The Innocents, 12 years earlier. Her best-known role came as the freethinking Sandy in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, but she gave up acting at the beginning of the ‘80s after becoming trapped in an endless cycle of crappy US TV series. It’s a great shame, as the promise of her early work wouldn’t have been overlooked so easily today; she’d most likely have earned Kate Winslet roles and status. The most haunting moments of Hell House are the ones featuring her vocally augmented channelling and her unnerving, unhinged laughter following her carnal encounter with the spirit.

Florence: I don’t know you people. Why are you here? It does no good. Nothing changes. Nothing. Get out or I’ll hurt you. I can’t help myself. God damn you, you filthy sons of bitches. God damn you. I don’t want to hurt you but I must get out of this house. I must, before I kill you all.

Anyone familiar with Orbital’s Middle of Nowhere album will recognise the first half of that quote, sampled on the track I Don’t Know You People. Florence’s is the film’s first death (although both come during the final act) and, even given her freak-out attempt to destroy the machine, it comes as a shock (“She had to destroy my beliefs, before they destroyed her”).

Ann: You… me… that girl… Lionel… all together… naked… drunk… clutching… sweating… biting…

Ann brings with her the lustiest reaction to the house, beginning with her discovery of an array of erotic literature and continuing with her imagining of a copulating statue of Pan coming to life. It isn’t long before she’s appearing to poor impassive Ben (twice) begging for some action. The effectiveness of these scenes come largely from Hunnicutt’s bewitched playing, but it’s unfortunate that her character is purely reactive; we know nothing of her background or interests, she’s defined purely by Lionel and the sexual yearnings he fails to satisfy. Hunnicutt is astutely cast, with the kind of Bond girl looks that belie her acting skills and emphasise Lionel’s myopia and single-mindedness. Like Franklin, she was never rewarded with the kinds of parts she deserved, but a decade later made for a memorable Irene Adler opposite Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes.

FlorenceWho the hell do you think you are, you bastard? You might have been hot stuff when you were fifteen, but now you’re shit!

And then there’s the wonderful Roddy McDowall. He’s an endlessly watchable actor, his ubiquity in American TV of the ‘60s and ‘70s standing as an unfair stigma against his charisma and talent. And he’s a shrewd choice for the unassuming hero, frequently typecast as untrustworthy and/or spineless and possessed of an enduringly fey asexuality that still lends him boyishness in his mid-40s. McDowall’s screen history informs us that he won’t survive the house. But it also makes the sight of Ann (and Florence) repeatedly offering herself to him, to an uncomprehending response, knowingly amusing.


BenThe house tried to kill me. It almost succeeded.

Ben’s role initially is one of the ill-fated prophet of doom. His warning to Florence proves accurate (“You’re the one who should leave this house. You’re the one who’s being used, not me”). That he is withholding his abilities as protection suggests that, when he inevitably opens himself up, something nasty awaits. Indeed, there’s a scene where he does so (prior to the clearing) having been goaded by Lionel who accuses him of taking the money and running; he screams in terror and writhes in agony in front of a hearth.


McDowell has that rare ability to tread the border between seriousness and camp, and he straddles the divide in an enormously enjoyable fashion here. His salvo aimed to provoke Belasco at the climax, decrying him as a “funny little dried up bastard” and calling his mother a whore, as gusts of supernatural wind blowing him across the mansion’s church, is a scream. Elsewhere you hang on his every word as he recounts what happened in the house 20 years before. Outside of his latex-shrouded performances in the Planet of the Apes films, this would be his best role until he playing Peter Vincent in the late ‘80s Fright Night movies.

BenDrug addiction, alcoholism, sadism, bestiality, mutilation, murder, vampirism, necrophilia, cannibalism, not to mention a gamut of sexual goodies. Shall I go on?

Revisiting Hell House, it’s a little surprising just how undefined the activities that went on in the house remain. We learn that 27 bodies were found when it was opened up in 1929 (it was built in 1919), Belasco’s not among them. Matheson leaves most of the details to the imagination. One might argue that the less is more approach yields dividends, and Hough tends to this method; he frequently shows characters’ reactions rather than what they see or experience. But there’s a lingering feeling that we don’t learn enough of Belasco to allow us to understand how he became such a demonic force, certainly not when we’re finally informed of his rather unlikely motivating force. When Ann speaks of “all that debauchery and vice”, you can be sure that a modern version wouldn’t miss the chance to leap into a flashback, or show Ann in an ecstatic reverie as she perceives herself becoming a part of those events. Most comments from those familiar with the novel attest to its copious sex and violence; it’s more than possible that any filmmaker remaking the movie, aside from relocating it to the novel’s New England setting, would over-indulge those elements to the point of missing the wood for the trees. And there are those who consider the book guilty of this anyway, that it might have been better served by a little restraint. Apparently Matheson came round to the film, recognising its merits rather than bemoaning how it fell short of his novel (to be fair to him, he put the blame on his own choices rather than Hough’s direction).


And a version more tonally in line with the source material unfortunately wouldn’t change the ending, which sucks all the air out of the room. We learn that motivating factor for Belasco’s monstrous behaviour (including his penchant for crippling his victims) was his diminutive size. He wasn’t even five foot tall and “so despised his own shortness that he had both his legs cut off”, replacing them with prostheses. Maybe it works better on the page, but the sight of horror veteran Michael Gough playing a corpse, glass of wine in hand,  is underwhelming even without his bizarre pathology.

In contrast, I rather like the daffy pseudo-science explanation whereby his soul resides within led-lined walls so as to shelter from the intrusive device he foresaw would one day enter the house. Ben charitably credits both Lionel and Florence with being half right in their theories. It wasn’t a mindless force or multiple hauntings; it was one (and Lionel was correct in terms of the efficacy of his machine). I’ve seen it suggested that the cat shown at the end indicates that Belasco’s spirit is still at large but, since we already saw a possessed cat meet a messy end, I suspect it’s just there for aesthetic purposes (unless Belasco possessed any feline in the surrounding area). For Matheson’s purposes, electro-magnetic radiation is as verifiable in psychic phenomena as it is in the physical world. It’s at least a plausible touch that the humans need to leave the building when the machine is switched on.

Although the story of this film is fictitious the events depicted involving psychic phenomena are not only within the bounds of possibility, but could also well be true. (Tom Corbett – Clairvoyant and Psychic Consultant to European Royalty)

The opening invitation, asking the audience to see the events as plausible, looks like Matheson is straight-up taking the piss (Tom Corbett is also the name of a ‘50s science fiction hero, a “space cadet”), but as recently as 1996 he attested that all the happenings in the book were based on actual occurrencesIt’s always useful to be able to cite sources to justify artistic licence because, as we have noted, the last thing Matheson really seems to care about is his tale standing up to rigorous analysis; it’s all about the appearance (which makes it a wonder he gave his legless antagonist a pass). Hence he throws in occasionally quotations from the Bible, to add an air of ancient attestation to the evil at work (“If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out”). 

If it weren’t that Hough’s direction carries with it the artifice of Hammer, during the opening scenes we might have been fooled into thinking this was a serious-minded exploration of strange phenomena. The approach to recording and analysing evidence has that air (and the scene where ectoplasm is produced has an irresistible matter-of-factness to it), but unlike the ambiguity of The Haunting, Hell House quickly embraces the creative potential of the haunted house phenomenon. Anyone hoping for something more considered would probably take as big a knock from what transpires as those who expect The Prestige to deliver the ultimate in stage sleight of hand. It would fair to say that Matheson doesn’t need to convince anyone; he’s an author so telling a good yarn comes first.


The common assumption seems to be that Matheson based Belasco on Aleister Crowley, but I haven’t seen this substantiated. De Sade certainly seems to be in there, but Matheson’s character could probably take in any historical figure who took pride in depravity and debauchery. Crowley is often associated with the number 23 (unfortunately a number now forever entwined with Jim Carrey), and those interested in the subject can find the background to its significance with a quick Google search. Or pick up Robert Anton Wilson’s Cosmic Trigger for a thoroughly good read. Ever since reading about it, instances of 23 in movies invariably catch my attention. If they weren’t so inexhaustible, I’d probably document them; as it is, you’ll probably find one cropping up least once in any given film. Here, the less than spectacular 8.23am appears on one of the subtitles; more markedly, Belasco’s date of birth is 23 March 1879 (in the real world, production began on 23 October 1972 and the German Blu-ray release was 23 March 2012).


Hough and Matheson don’t waste their time getting to the meat; Hell House comes in at a little over 90 minutes. Stylstically too, Hough’s approach tends to the straightforward. He favours low angles, employing a wide-angle lens to increase the sense of exaggeration and heightened reality (particularly effective with the exterior shots). Establishing long shots are sometimes used to promote the sense of the team being watched by an unseen force. Hough is also fond of composing close-ups with his actors either side of the frame; he stages an entire conversation between Lionel and Ben this way, and the effect is striking and intimate. Hough’s steady approach means that the occasional flourish (a corridor spinning as Florence runs along it; Florence in a trance, a chiaroscuro effect picking out her eyes; copulating shadows on a bedroom ceiling) stands out. On the downside, he’s unable to lift the standard poltergeist effects out-of-the-ordinary. Hough would go on to direct a number of live-action Disney movies during the ‘70s and early ‘80s but his career never really took off.

The Legend of Hell House is best viewed as an engaging, spirited product of its time. Any comparisons with its more illustrious horror bedfellows of 1973 will find it wanting, but it has an energy undimmed by the passing years. It never falls victim to the repetitions and sometime tedium of many of the later Hammer films, and even offers the occasional surprise in terms of character fates and nuances. Hell House more than deserves its place amongst the more celebrated haunted house movies.

Spookily enough, the news of Richard Matheson’s passing has been announced as I complete this review; I can feel the ectoplasm leaking from my fingertips as I type. The Guardian obituary dismisses the film as “lacklustre” but I’d urge you to make your own thorough investigation.

**** 



Comments

  1. Thanks for the share. The Trailer at the bottom looks awesome! The whole scene reminds me of some of the Haunted Houses in PA I have been to!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loved this film and enjoyed your review. I will review the movie on my podcast, THE LAST KNOCK, which will be available on iTunes on Monday, 09DEC13. Be well!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also loved this film when i first saw it 30 years ago. my girlfriend turned me on to this movie. i rented it last weekend and enjoyed it again. the review was interesting, thank you

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shirley Jackson's novel on which Robert Wise's film "The Haunting" (1963) was based is titled "The Haunting of Hill House" not, as you wrote, "The Haunting of Hell House," and it was published in '59 not '53.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This film is one of my "baker's half-dozen"(7) best ghost movies ever with Clive Revill a standout as the pragmatic leader. The book is much nastier and unsettling and I believe the restraint shown by Matheson and director Hough improves on what could have been a funhouse ride type film with grotesque faces, etc. Restraint and what is only suggested, not seen is far more unnerving. The touchstone ghost film is of course 1963's The Haunting the screenplay of which improves on what I consider to be one of the least scary books I've ever read, "The Haunting of Hill House", a thoroughly mundane book on which accolodes have been heaped, much to my puzzlement. LOHH deserves to be in the rarified atmosphere of the very few great ghost movies ever made, the acting and direction executed with a deft touch.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

It’s like being smothered in beige.

The Good Liar (2019)
(SPOILERS) I probably ought to have twigged, based on the specific setting of The Good Liar that World War II would be involved – ten years ago, rather than the present day, so making the involvement of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren just about believable – but I really wish it hadn’t been. Jeffrey Hatcher’s screenplay, adapting Nicholas Searle’s 2016 novel, offers a nifty little conning-the-conman tale that would work much, much better without the ungainly backstory and motivation that impose themselves about halfway through and then get paid off with equal lack of finesse.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012)
The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

The sooner we are seamen again, the better.

The Bounty (1984)
(SPOILERS) How different might David Lean’s late career have been if Ryan’s Daughter hadn’t been so eviscerated, and his confidence with it? Certainly, we know about his post-A Passage to India projects (Empire of the Sun, Nostromo), but there were fourteen intervening years during which he surely might have squeezed out two or three additional features. The notable one that got away was, like Empire of the Sun, actually made: The Bounty. But by Roger Donaldson, after Lean eventually dropped out. And the resulting picture is, as you might expect, merely okay, notable for a fine Anthony Hopkins performance as Bligh (Lean’s choice), but lacking any of the visual poetry that comes from a master of the craft.

We just cut up our girlfriend with a chainsaw. Does that sound "fine"?

Evil Dead II (1987)
(SPOILERS) Evil Dead II (also known with the subtitle Dead by Dawn) is one of the funniest films ever made, as a result of which it remains a high-water mark Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell have yet to surpass. Understandably so, it will be no blemish against them if they are unable to again equal the sheer energy, inventiveness, exuberance, glee and craziness very throw into its every frame. It’s the movie that made both their careers, and the every definition of cult fare; one that was an extremely modest success on first release, but whose reputation has grown steadily. How large that currently is will likely be gauged by the current Ash vs The Evil Dead series but, provided the central ingredients comprising Ash are intact and the camerawork is sufficiently unhinged, the ingredients that arrived fully-formed in glorious cockeyed form here, it too could become at very least its own cult item.

If The Evil Dead is a horror movie that succeeds in being gruey but fails to…