(Joshua Cook & Jeffrey Cook, 2006)
Take a look at this description of Gruesome (from the 2006 Leeds International Film Festival brochure - see link below review):
"Doomed to relive her own horrendous murder over and over again, Claire realises that she may never wake up from her nightmare unless she uncovers the truth behind what is happening and why. As a psychopathic killer stalks and murders her everyday, Claire starts to lose her mind and her grip on any kind of reality disappears, leaving her in an unrelentless world of torture. Switchblade Romance meets Groundhog Day with a bit of Hostel thrown in makes this film unmissable with a twist to boot."
Now, I don’t know about you, but the idea of a torture-genre version of Groundhog Day sounds pretty fucking excellent to me. Such a concept could allow for multiple layers of tension as the victim struggles not merely with an immediate ‘escape-or-die’ situation, but also with a deeper, more metaphysical ‘solve-or-relive-the-whole-thing’ mystery. Cashed out in the right way, this concept could make for a seriously twisted horror film. Needless to say, then, I went to see Gruesome with high expectations.
Unfortunately, the Leeds Film Festival’s description of the film is factually inaccurate on two main counts. Firstly, Claire does not relive her own murder over and over. She does get killed a couple of times, but not in the same way. In other words: there is no repetition of a single chain of events (and, therefore, no riffing on permutations and offshoots of that chain) of the kind that made Groundhog Day so ingenius and appealing. Secondly, Claire’s situation can in no way be described as a ‘world of torture’. With the (admirable) exception of one instance of facial skinning (the only part of the film that could possibly justify the phrase ‘a bit of Hostel thrown in’), Gruesome trades in a sparse and watery form of psychological, rather than physical, horror. (Look carefully at the quoted paragraph again and you’ll see that Claire’s situation is actually described as an unrelentless world of torture. Presumably this was supposed to read ‘unrelenting’ or ‘relentless’. The term ‘unrelentless’ is actually quite accurate! A Freudian slip perhaps?)
As for the twist, it’s shit, and if you’ve seen Switchblade Romance (or any of a large number of other films that deploy a similar lame-arse-cop-out-masquerading-as-shocking-twist ending) then you’ll know exactly what sort of nonsense to expect.
(So … as it turns out, the idea of a torture-horror version of Groundhog Day is still very much up-for-grabs. If any screenwriters happen to be reading this ... What are you waiting for?)
Gruesome @ 2006 Leeds International Film Festival website
10 comments:
seems like you've been busy watching films.
OK, folks, it's QUIZ TIME!
In the quote from the Leeds Film Festival's description of Gruesome, I can spot 3 instances of bad writing (other than the use of the non-word "unrelentless"). Can anyone identify all 3?
(I haven't got any prizes to offer, so as a lame kind of semi-prize, I will offer the inclusion of a link to a website of your own choice in my link section. WOW!!!)
Is this the piece of text that you refer to?
"Doomed to relive her own horrendous murder over and over again, Claire realises that she may never wake up from her nightmare unless she uncovers the truth behind what is happening and why. As a psychopathic killer stalks and murders her everyday, Claire starts to lose her mind and her grip on any kind of reality disappears, leaving her in an unrelentless world of torture. Switchblade Romance meets Groundhog Day with a bit of Hostel thrown in makes this film unmissable with a twist to boot."
If so then... err...
UNMISSABLE - is this a real word?
Bad grammer suggests that you can lose a "grip on any kind of reality disappears"
"makes this film unmissable with a twist to boot." Implies that the film is well worth seeing but is , infact, a pile of dung but you'll not notice to the last moment...
Sorry, didn't read your review very carefully did I??? DOH!
Hello Anonymous.
You've certainly picked up on one of them. The phrase
"Claire starts to lose her mind and her grip on any kind of reality ..."
reads as though it's a description of two things Claire is losing. But then the sentence ends, seemingly nonsensically, with the word "disappears"; so the reader is forced to backtrack and conclude that Claire is only losing one thing (her mind) while she concurrently experiences the disappearance of something else (her grip on any kind of reality). In other words, there should be a comma after the word "and", so that it doesn't fall under the logical scope of the term "lose":
"Claire starts to lose her mind, and her grip on any kind of reality disappears"
Your other two guesses are not what I had in mind.
"Unmissable" is in the OED. But even if it wasn't, it's a word so commonly used (especially in the context of films) that I'd say its use was fine.
As for the claim that the film is "unmissable with a twist to boot", I don't see how it implies what you suggest. Unless you can offer some kind of justificatory analysis on this point, I'm going to say you're wrong. Sorry!
So ... you score 1 out of 3.
Any other offers?
I'm guessing I'm not allowed to enter this 'comp', as it would merely be a test of whether I was listening to you last night or not.
I'm not sure I'd pass anyway, heeheehee ;)
No, you are barred from entering this quiz. But as a consolation, I'm willing to offer you the same prize anyway.
Yay - link me you fucker!!
Grim: Consider yourself linked.
(If you want me to use a different URL, let me know. Benrik blogs don't seem to have front pages ... do they?)
OK, since there've been no further entries in my Quiz, I hereby declare 'Anonymous' as the winner, with the score of 1/3. Let me know which site you want me to link. (Unfortunately, since I have no way of telling one "Anonymous" from another, the first person to leave an anonymous comment will be treated as the winner! Unfair, maybe. But that's what you get for entering a competition anonymously!)
For what it's worth, here are the other two quiz answers that no-one mentioned:
(1) "murders her everyday"
This should be: "murders her every day". The word "everyday" is an adjective and cannot be used in this way. (Example of proper use: "This is an everyday occurrence.")
(2) "the truth behind what is happening and why"
This is a nonsensical thing to say, and here's why. Consider the following 2 things:
(A) what is happening
and
(B) why it is happening.
Now, what about "the truth behind what is happening"? Is this a third thing, distinct from both A and B? No. Talking about "the truth behind what is happening" is just another way of talking about why it is happening. So the phrase "the truth behind what is happening and why" repeats the same thing twice.
Post a Comment