Logo

Cool News

A take on the remarkable British WWI Horror Film - DEATHWATCH!!!

Published at:  Dec 04, 2002 5:22:31 AM CST

Hey folks, Harry here... I saw this movie at Sitges, sorry I haven't reviewed it yet, but things have been pretty busy here with BNAT coming Personally I'm on the otherside. I very much prefer DEATHWATCH to DOG SOLDIERS. Sure, it doesn't have the franchise-ability of DOG SOLDIERS with the whole military versus Werewolves thing, but... I love the whole parallel to Purgatory, St Michael and what not placed atop a story about horror in the trenches of WW1. This isn't a vampire or mummy or zombie or werewolf movie. This isn't a mad scientist tale or even a ghost story. This is about something else altogether and it is that very aspect that enthralls me. I love the ability to argue about what it was that was going on in those trenches... the ability to discuss higher powers and lower powers in the fog of war. I love living barb wire, I love muckity muck corpses gnawed on by rats... and most of all DOG SOLDIERS didn't have Andy Serkis kicking ass for you, me and every other living being on the planet earth. He's a god in this movie. Here's Darth Manchester with his take. I'm going to try to get to writing about this soon...





Darth Manchester here with rumblings Lets get to the good (ish) bit instead -


I've just got back from a preview screening of DEATHWATCH at my local cinema. Tickets were scarce, and the place was packed. The vibe going round: this spooky WW1 movie could be sleeper hit of the summer this side of the pond...and maybe there's a grain of truth in that...


Then again


Sadly, the first scene is weak. The big no-mans-land assault isn't truly terrible (visually, its capable) but it lacked a certain punch in the audio department. The ADR, sound FXs, and score are weak. And they are weak through out. The score in particular is a cheap synth-orchestra jobby, that doesn't have the fullness and impact it really should in this type of movie. But with a budget of $3.2 million (or £2 million-ish in real money) what do you expect?


After the first battle, and a brief introduction to our main characters, the band of brothers stumble across an enemy trench. They kill a few stragglers, and then take control of it. War is simple, it seems.


The soldiers then secure the trench rats fester on mangled corpses; soldiers lie dead, water and mud EVERYWHERE. It's grotesquely pleasant on the eye.


(I can't stop) On to Act 2 - Contained inside the trench, there aren't that many places we can go. We rely on shocks (more to come) and talky-talk with soldiers. The pal-speak is mostly good. Sergeant Tate (played sloppily by Hugo Spear) gets the lion's share of the humorous quips. Captain Jennings (Laurence Fox) also has some decent banter with his soldiers


I should mention Jamie Bell of BILLY ELLIOT fame. At 15 (when the film was shot) he delivers another commanding performance far beyond his younger years. As a young upstart, who believes in the honour of war, Bell is the main focus of the story. We follow him as his idyllic dream of defending his country falls apart as he discovers the horrors of war.


Oh, yes -- how can I forget GOLLUM.


Holly shit, Andy Serkis is a fuckin' monster. This guy chews up the scenery, sleeps on it for a week, then regurgitates his stomach-filth into the face of any unlucky motherfucker stood beside him. He is ham-tastic. His lines are delivered with all the subtle charm of a shower of Dubya's stinger missiles and he rocks in the cheesiest of ways. You really should go check out his madcap performance of a soldier dehumanized by war. Good stuff.





(I won't disclose what happens, as it will kill the movie and any fun you squeeze from the movie plus its late in Blighty and I'm up early -- my apologies readers)


You see, the most annoying thing is; we don't have fuckin' clue why "its" all happening. At one stage its, gas. The next, shellshock, then and its yadayadyadayada & some exposition would have been nice. Not in Donnie Darko proportions, but a personal insight from one of the soldiers would have been cool.


On the plus side, tension is good, FX (in all there gory detail) are nice, direction of both is adequate. Lets just say; some guy afterwards complained to the cinema's management regarding its 15 rating -- the killjoy wants it changed to 18. I say, "Fuck him in his stupid ass".


It's late so I'm wrapping up.


FINAL THOUGHT: It does exactly what it says on the tin - Shocks, decent-ish acting, weird/daft stuff in a trench, and a cozy wrap-up. It isn't as good as recent Brit/indie hit DOG SOLDIERS, but it tries hard. Worth catching at matinee prices.



Harry, get digging.


Laterz folks



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 5:42:16 AM CST

    At last - COOL NEWS (not)!!!

    by workshed

    Sounds like 'Deathwatch' could be a real romp. BUT do we really need a remake of THHE? By the sound of things, Mr.Craven's creativity is long spent. Being the first VHS video I EVER rented (aged 12, in 1981) it has a special place in my heart. Fuck ALL remakes. Especially the proposed 'Dawn of the Dead' hotch-potch. Romero should see his lawyers immediately.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 5:47:34 AM CST

    bad

    by talbuckin

    Deathwatch is bad. I saw it at Sitges where, funnily, last year they showed an almost identical flick, called The Bunker, as bad as this. The best thing is that the director, before it was shown, said it was a very original picture, like no one has ever seen. After the movie evryone laughed at this sentence, and everybody was talking about The Bunker.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 8:22:54 AM CST

    Jamie Bell sucks arse.

    by monkey lover

    He is another drama school factory line actor that we churn off here in Britain. Like Daniel Radcliffe. Neither of them can act.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 8:44:55 AM CST

    forum guy beats Harry

    by si@yippiekiyay

    Thank you sledgehammer450. those T3 poster are very cool, i thought Harry would post this up but i got the news from some guy in a forum...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:13:05 AM CST

    So...

    by rev_skarekroe

    In the horror genre alone we've got upcoming remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, Wicker Man, and now The Hills Have Eyes. Did I just dream the last few decades? sk

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:20:42 AM CST

    Sledgehammer is back...

    by tv casualty

    ...and he's still a sub-literate halfwit. Welcome back dude. Anyway, I just saw Dog Soldiers recently and loved it. This seems a little different, but still sounds interesting. And as for the Hills Have Eyes remake - I dunno. As a general rule, I'm against remakes. But I guess it depends on where they go with it. Would it be an actual remake? If so, it could still be good. The original is pretty dated. Or would it be more like The Thing, which is a remake but isn't at the same time. Anyway, this is certainly an interesting premise. I wonder if they ever explain what the bad thing is? I'm all for movies that offer no explanation, the evil just IS.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:23:40 AM CST

    Dog Soldiers

    by evil dicktator

    Is it just me or did the werewolves in "Dog Soldiers" look more cuddly than terrifying? They (kind of) looked like giant husky dogs! Saying that the special effects where great for a low-budget brit-flick.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:25:03 AM CST

    Cant Wait to See this One

    by fearsme

    Can it be? An original Horror movie without an 8 on the end? Not a glossed over remake of a Japanese film, or the 20th Installment of the Halloween franchise, but an honest to god old school horror film. Man, i can't wait. An american distributor needs to get this into theaters so that people can see a horror film without the kids from the WB shows, and truly be freaked out again. The only thing that freaks me out is a remake of The Hills Have Eyes. Here's an original horror filmmaker, and to immediately go in and remake The Hills Have Eyes, which is exactly what we dont need: MORE REMAKES. Just my two cents.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:43:38 AM CST

    fucking hell...

    by tv casualty

    sorry 'bout the blank post there folks. Ahem. I guess one of the only reasons I'm not completely pissed about the remake idea for HHE is a) like I said, it's a pretty dated film, and b) it appears to be Craven's idea. I guess that's two of the reason. Anwyway, I mean, yeah, the guy's had soe shitty ideas of late, but it's always good to have the original director at your back.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 11:07:52 AM CST

    Bob Clark

    by pmorano

    No Bob, there was another "horror" movie that recycles more than 1/2 hour of the prvious: Silent Night Deadly Night 2. What a stinker that was. "Must punish" By the way Bob, thanks for Porky's and the Christmas Story!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 12:51:13 PM CST

    poor taste...

    by y282

    I can't put my finger on it but there's something about a zombie film set in the trenches of WWI that I find deeply distasteful. Am I the only one?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 1:08:13 PM CST

    Why is it the best horror films are being made everywhere except

    by otis von zipper

    All of the decent horror films seem to be coming form the UK or Japan, or even Canada, everywhere except the U.S. And to make matters worse, the one truly great U.S. horror film I've seen in the last few years may not ever be released to theatres. That would be Lucky McGee's May. Yes, I liked The Ring a lot, so at least we have that. I wouldn't really complain about good horror coming from other countries if it weren't for one fact, they usually don't get shown here. Thanks to video and a couple specialty theatres I've seen Dog Soldiers, Ginger Snaps, Audition, but will I ever get the chance to see Deathwatch, 28 days Later, Dark Water, The Eye, etc.? Alright, enough whining.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 1:21:51 PM CST

    Nice scoop on the THHE front...

    by souljacker

    I'm a big Craven fan and I haven't heard about that. It could be cool.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 2:00:51 PM CST

    what exactly is "holly shit"?

    by the dude abides

    just wondering...must have something to do with the yuletide season.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 2:50:55 PM CST

    Instead of re-making THE HILLS HAVE EYES...

    by cash bailey

    ...they should just do an adaption of Richard Laymon's seriously sick and fucked-up THE WOODS ARE DARK. That book reads like the greatest slasher flick you'll never see.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 3:00:22 PM CST

    Silent Night Deadly Night 2...

    by vern

  • Dec 04, 2002 3:59:59 PM CST

    Deathwatch - It felt like it!!!

    by abstractharmony

    I too was at the showing last night and I have to say we obviously saw two completely differnt films.

    The camera work was pedestrian, the lighting fucking awful and I've seen better acting on the muppet show!

    By his own admission the writer/director only liked and I quote "about 40-50%" of what was on the screen.

    It's not all bad though, Andy Serkis ruled the trench as a mad, bad and dangerous to know cock-er-ney!

    Michael J. Bassett came across as a very confident guy but I think this one should be marked - "could do better!"

    With a decent script, decent location conditions and a bit longer to get used to the gear prior to shooting he should do well.

    Unfortunately, not this time. Sorry Mate I really did try to like it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 4:01:02 PM CST

    Deathwatch - It felt like it!!!

    by abstractharmony

    I too was at the showing last night and I have to say we obviously saw two completely differnt films.

    The camera work was pedestrian, the lighting fucking awful and I've seen better acting on the muppet show!

    By his own admission the writer/director only liked and I quote "about 40-50%" of what was on the screen.

    It's not all bad though, Andy Serkis ruled the trench as a mad, bad and dangerous to know cock-er-ney!

    Michael J. Bassett came across as a very confident guy but I think this one should be marked - "could do better!"

    With a decent script, decent location conditions and a bit longer to get used to the gear prior to shooting he should do well.

    Unfortunately, not this time. Sorry Mate I really did try to like it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 4:07:46 PM CST

    Bring back Leprechaun

    by terry_1978

    Warwick Davis kicks booty!!!! The sequels are goofy as hell, mostly direct to video and cable....but I watch 'em....why i do not know.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 4:47:31 PM CST

    Who?

    by pmorano

    Or is it whom? (Sorry about the bad grammar...) But who/whom would be wierd enough looking to play Michael Berryman's (isn't that his name?) role? John Hughes will have to go back and CGI that scene in Wierd Science too.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 4:54:27 PM CST

    Deathwatch v. Dog Soldiers

    by dallen24

    David Allen here, producer of Dog Soldiers. I just want to say that I saw Deathwatch at Sitges as well, sat right next to Eli Roth as a matter of fact, and across the aisle from Harry. I found Deathwatch to be an unbelievable movie, incredible in every way. The story was fantastic, the mood, setting, the horrors, everything about it was great. The way that you want to talk about this movie after it is over, the symbolism and what it means, really keeps you talking. My hats are off to Michael Bassett, I have had meetings with him and hope to work with him someday. As for Dog Soldiers, it is a totally different style of movie, and really cannot even be compared to Deathwatch. The only comparison is the fact that it is military horror as is Deathwatch. Other than that, two totally different stories and styles of filmmaking. Dog Soldiers has been enjoyed by a great many people around the world, thanks in part to AICN and Harry Knowles' support. It has worked for us, and we hope to continue the story in the near future. I will state flat out that I believe Deathwatch will get distribution in the states and that many people will be able to enjoy it. If you get a chance go see it! And go buy the Dog Soldiers dvd while you're at it!!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 5:12:39 PM CST

    DOG SOLDIERS

    by sheamus

    I've been shot down for both my DOG SOLDIERS and 28 DAYS LATER reviews in the past few months and it's good to see that both of these films are finally getting the respect they deserve. Very much looking forward to DEATHWATCH too. Great couple of years for British horror - finally, something to celebrate in the UK film scene.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 8:15:10 PM CST

    why is it always one has to be better than the other?

    by sundown

    ti seems sort of childish. They seem like two good and different films that we should be lucky exist. I've only seen Dog Soldiers but I think it rocks harder than most crap I've seen in the last 5 years. I won't put it down because I liked Regin of Fire or Brotherhood of the Wolf better...I'm just happy all this stuff is coming out finally! Some really promising stuff...it's been a long time since we had films as cool as Aliens and Assault on Precinct 13 and with Cameron in retirement and Carpenter making crap its good that finally some new guys are showing up...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 04, 2002 9:20:42 PM CST

    It's hardly Dog Soldiers v Deathwatch is it?

    by souljacker

    Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch are being compared becuase of the obvious "military horror" factor...and they're recent brit-hits that are *horror* based...Of cuase they're going to be compared...it's stupid to suggest they shouldn't be.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 1:31:13 AM CST

    What happened to The Hills Have Eyes scoop?

    by concord

    Hmmmm, why has the mentioning of The Hills Have Eyes remake been removed from both the headline and the article? What the hell is going on here?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 8:06:39 AM CST

    thanks, as well, bob...

    by duanejones

    ...for _Deathdream_ and _Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things_...what crack were you smoking when you unleashed _Baby Geniuses_ on an unsuspecting public?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 8:11:48 AM CST

    Dog soldiers. Dog shit more like

    by tjlaser

    That film was crap. And not because it was low budget. It was derivative. Badly directed and badly acted. But most of all the script was rubbish and what does that cost? Must have been fun to make.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 10:54:43 AM CST

    Bob

    by pmorano

    Bob, I also heard you're doing "Baby Geniuses II" Bob, I implore you not to. Please. Do "Porkys IV" instead. Uhhh nevernmind.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 2:41:54 PM CST

    what happened to the "Hills Have Eyes" remake scoop?

    by elgyn6655321

    What, did Wes Craven give Harry an angry phone call because he`s trying to keep the remake secret or something?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 8:45:31 PM CST

    With a budget of 3.2 million...

    by huneybee

    I hope you weren't expecting an epic opening scene along the lines of the one in Saving Private Ryan. It sounds as if the movie delivers what is intended and does so well. The fact that everything may not be explained in great detail and may leave me thinking instead of feeling as if I've been bludgeoned by the truth with a baseball bat is a plus as far as I'm concerned. Swing away, Michael, swing away.____Bee

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 8:50:56 PM CST

    recalled HILLS scoop

    by runaway

    I doubt Wes had anything to do with it. HILLS is one of the few horror classics that could benefit from a modern remake. The DEATHWATCH guy probably came to his senses and realized that it's bad business to talk about a gig you haven't actually gotten yet.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 05, 2002 10:26:11 PM CST

    i have to agree with the naysayers...

    by elguapo


    saw this a few weeks ago and found it to be a tiresome and predictable film. worse than that, i think it was a wasted opportunity. the idea of a horror film set in the trenches of ww1 is not bad - "deathwatch. it's hell in the trenches". but this was just plain bad. in every way. and i hardly ever make sweeping statements like that. poor script. sloppy execution. and as subtle as a speedhump.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 06, 2002 3:19:21 PM CST

    Britain rules

    by williamp78

    Hi, just like to point out that america can no longer produce have decent horror movies while britain has again produced a brace of superb yet low budget scares.

    Also, deathwatch is the only place to see the personification of gollum (andy serkis if you are thwe only person who doesn't know) and even if the movie was shite (which it is not) you would have to see the movie just to see him

    Reply to Talkback

  • Dec 06, 2002 3:19:36 PM CST

    Britain rules

    by williamp78

    Hi, just like to point out that america can no longer produce have decent horror movies while britain has again produced a brace of superb yet low budget scares.

    Also, deathwatch is the only place to see the personification of gollum (andy serkis if you are the only person who doesn't know) and even if the movie was shite (which it is not) you would have to see the movie just to see him

    Reply to Talkback

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback