Why experimental horror ‘Skinamarink’ is scarier than you think

As the great John Carpenter once said, horror is a universal language. We are all born afraid. Fear can be attributed to a lot of every day actions. We get to work on time in fear of being late. We attend social events in fear of missing out. Even those who have supposedly mastered fear still feel afraid. Batman fights criminals in fear of letting down the memory of his parents and his city. But what is it that people generally fear the most? What is it that keeps us up at night looking at that dark corner of our bedrooms? The unknown.

No one understands this better than writer/director Kyle Edward Ball, with his recent experimental horror film Skiramarink (2022). The premise of this film is quite simple; two children wake up one night to find their father is missing and various objects around the house are mysteriously disappearing. Ball’s focus however is not on delivering a tightly cohesive story with developed characters. Instead, he creates a creepy atmosphere relying mainly on ambient sounds and images. Ball has a Youtube channel on which he makes commenters’ nightmares into short films, as well as uploading his 2020 short film Heck, as a proof of concept for Skinamarink. Through these short films Ball clearly pioneered his minimal directional style; using grainy found-footage style camera work, mysterious ambient background noises, and minimal use of dialogue or physical appearance of characters. Effectively, this outputs a ‘running up the stairs after switching the light off’ type feeling.

For general audiences, Skinamarink can best be described as a combination of Paranormal Activity (2007), The Blair Witch Project (1999) and Poltergeist (1982), though much more subtle. Skinamarink really breaks filmmaking down to its most basic components; a series of images and sounds, and maximises their effectiveness. Most of the film consists of dark, grainy shots of various rooms in the house, often from the perspective of the two kids. Superficially, that sounds exceedingly unappealing, but if you maintain an open mind and experience this film for what it is, it is unsettling unlike any other horror I’ve seen. There’s one scene where the dad tells one of the kids to look under the bed, and there’s nothing even there, but it provokes that child-like fear that everyone still feels into adulthood, creating an anxiety level which is through the roof. This film masterfully exposes childhood fears, as it deals with the removal of various sources of comfort we have as children. Throughout the film, old cartoons play on a TV to serve as a background comfort noise for the children, and various household objects (including doors, windows, and seemingly parents) disappear. This reminds us of the comfort we found in these things in childhood, and provokes the feelings of them being taken away with a lack of control. Of course, this film also frequently relies on that feeling of something lurking in the dark and lets our imagination run wild, but the most unsettling thing about this is the fact that whatever our imagination conjures up, it never comes. It keeps you in a perpetual state of tension and anxiety as you expect a jump scare to come to relieve the tension, but they often never do. I watched this film with a friend, and there was one shot of a corridor, and the slight outline of what we both agreed looked like a person, but the film never provides a clear answer, which is the most terrifying thing.

Enjoyment of a film can be defined as how effectively it stimulates our emotions. A good comedy will make us laugh, a good heartfelt drama will make us cry, and a good horror will make us afraid. Skinamarink proves a big budget with big scares isn’t a prerequisite to successful scares, effectively proving that over-relying on jump scares is an easy way to get an audience reaction. Nevertheless, I can understand why Skinamarink has polarised audiences, as it is very slow placed and spends a lot of time in the dark (literally). It would be perfect if it was a little bit shorter, and perhaps more concisely embedded its already skeletal story. As it stands, I hugely appreciate the different approach to the horror genre, as Kyle Edward Ball is clearly someone who has a love for the craft and understands what keeps people in suspense. It doesn’t spoon feed its audience with plot and predictable jumpscares, and relies heavily on the ‘feel, don’t think’ mentality. It is the type of film to inspire aspiring filmmakers (such as myself), as it shows all you need is a camera, a house, effective lighting, and good editing skills to create an effectively creepy film. If anything, Skinamarink demands multiple watches to piece together its story and fully appreciate the substance behind the tension.

‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ review: The MCU’s darkest, maddest film yet

When I first heard Sam Raimi would be directing Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, my first thought was – yes, he is exactly what the MCU needs. I knew we would be in for something substantially different to anything we’ve experienced so far in the MCU. Raimi’s history in both the superhero and horror genres made him more than qualified to helm what is quite possibly the MCU’s darkest and maddest film yet. His ability to maintain the integrity and grandeur of superheroism in his golden Spider-Man trilogy whilst incorporating elements of his horror roots set expectations for Multiverse of Madness to be one of the least MCU-esque films in all the right ways. Taking the reins on a story about one of Marvel’s most unique and mystical characters somehow seemed fit for the director, not to mention how the comic source material pushes the physical boundaries of the Marvel universe. So, was Multiverse of Madness the rollercoaster ride through the Marvel universe(s) it was expected to be? Let’s just say the rollercoaster took an ominous detour through the haunted house.

In Multiverse of Madness, Benedict Cumberbatch reprises his role as the (ex) Sorcerer Supreme for what seems like the umpteenth time, yet this being only his second solo outing. Cumberbatch maintains the appealing charisma of Stephen Strange, yet shows despite all his power how much of a flawed character he is. He always seems one finger lift away from causing diabolical consequences in the name of the greater good. To me, this has always has made Cumberbatch to Strange what Robert Downey Junior was to Iron Man, and something that Marvel always excels at; giving us flawed but likeable characters. Strange crosses paths with America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), a teenager with the ability to punch holes through the multiverse, and attempts to protect her from demonic forces looking to steal her power. MCU regulars Benedict Wong and Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Wong and Wanda/Scarlett Witch respectively, in addition to some returning faces we haven’t seen since the first Doctor Strange.

Strange’s relationship with Chavez is somewhere between friendship and mentor-mentee, providing a majority of the quippy MCU humour in the film we’ve become so accustomed to. They also bring some heart in the right moments, and their backstories are unexpectedly similar in interesting ways. Wong maintains his status as an underrated Marvel favourite of mine, his chemistry with Strange proving yet again to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of the film. It was also nice to see Rachel McAdams back as Strange’s periodic love interest Christine. The film provides us with a little more depth into their relationship and shows us how much Christine still means to Strange despite his new life as the world’s most powerful wizard. However, the real highlight of the cast in Multiverse of Madness was Olsen’s performance as the Scarlett Witch. Whilst providing us with a sympathetic plight, she delivers a new, edgy side to the character we have so far only had hints at. Without revealing the details of said plight, she shows us how far someone is willing to go in the name of love.

One of the main attractions of this rollercoaster ride is the visuals. Multiverse of Madness is possibly one of the most visually experimental films of the MCU. The visual atmosphere sells the otherworldly feel very effectively, reminiscent of Steve Ditko’s original illustrations of Strange’s world in the comics. The film plunges you through the multiverse with a plethora of colours and textures disassembled and assembled in different combinations; illustrating that when it comes to the multiverse, anything is possible. The visuals also display how truly powerful Strange and Wanda are, showing the full extent of what kind of house-of-mirrors tricks they have up their sleeves. I often see a lot of complaints about Marvel films being overly reliant on CGI. Whilst I can understand not everyone is keen on a substantial amount of CGI in films, to me, Marvel films have boasted some of the most impressive visual effects in the last decade, and Multiverse of Madness is no exception. The only effective way to stay true to the colourful, visual story-telling of the comics is to utilise modern technology. Make the most of CGI to express the scale of these stories as if they were real, and create an other-worldly feeling of escapism which is exactly what made the comics so popular in the first place.

As if the unique visuals weren’t enough, Multiverse of Madness also has one of the darkest atmospheres in the MCU’s history. As previously mentioned, the film illustrates how truly powerful Strange and Wanda are, and the film stretches its 12A rating to show us how far they’re willing to divulge in darker magic. The film is undoubtedly the closest thing we’ve had to a Marvel horror film since the Blade movies of the late 90s and early 2000s (except perhaps the recent Morbius). As the film progresses, you can see more and more of Sam Raimi’s sprinkles of horror and the supernatural. From unique cinematography to striking visuals, the film boasts some genuinely unsettling sequences in all the right ways. Be forewarned, the violence in the film is almost akin to fully adult-rated superhero content like Amazon Prime’s The Boys or Invincible. Anything in the superhero genre which isn’t afraid to go all out with the level of violence is something I always appreciate. It shows us how powerful the characters truly are beyond their conventional family friendly settings. The dark atmosphere of the film is only elevated by Danny Elfman’s hair-raising musical score, and I don’t think anyone else could’ve possibly been a better fit to score the film. Elfman’s signature supernatural style is very prominent here, using strings and choir to show of the film’s comic book grandeur whilst maintaining it’s frightening atmosphere. I was particularly impressed by some of the musical cues, with some high-pitched string sound effects elevating jump scares (yes, this film has jump scares) which almost reminded me of the Insidious films. If I’m comparing an MCU film to quite possibly one of the scariest horror movie franchises in recent years, you know you’re in for something special.

Whilst Multiverse of Madness was a thoroughly enjoyable film, I will acknowledge that it won’t be for everyone. Being the first MCU film after the cameo-filled phenomenon that was Spider-Man: No Way Home, I think Multiverse of Madness has become a victim of overhype. During the months leading up to its release, the internet was bubbling with fan-theories and rumours about the film’s cast and plot, and many came to believe it would top No Way Home with it’s level of cameos and crossovers. Whilst the film has it’s fair share of surprises, I couldn’t help but feel like it certainly would’ve left many fans wanting more. Personally, the fact that it may have been a little overhyped didn’t affect my enjoyment. It deconstructs the superhero genre and shows how much Sam Raimi excels as a director. It shows us that the multiverse isn’t about breathtaking cameos and plot twists, it plays with the idea that somewhere, somehow, there is a universe where we’re ‘happier’. Perhaps somewhere where things have worked out for the better, somewhere where we’re living out our ideal lives. So, the film asks; at what cost? This fundamental question gave the film a level of depth I was pleasantly surprised by.

The dark themes of Multiverse of Madness gave me the impression Marvel are experimenting with different genres; testing the waters to see how audiences react to a horror-themed MCU film. This is undoubtedly a good thing, as I’ve also seen complaints about the MCU becoming rather formulaic and substantially reliant on it’s humour. Multiverse of Madness has very little humour. It is a dark film which takes the MCU to places it hasn’t ventured before, and whilst it may not be the cameo-filled phenomenon that fans hoped it to be, it proves that after so many years Marvel are still willing to keep their franchise fresh and find new ways to make it appealing.

Spider-Man: No Way Home is a love letter to everything Spidey

The day was Wednesday 15th December, 2021. The time was approximately 21:42. A young man had just walked out of one of the first screenings of Spider-Man: No Way Home. This young man had been a Spidey fan ever since he was a young boy climbing in trees and collecting Spider-Man figures from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. He had been there for every new Spider-Man film for as long as he could remember, and was very well informed on the comic book origins and timeline of the web-slinger. He knew that what it meant to be Spider-Man was not to have the proportionate strength, speed and ability of a spider. He knew what it meant to be Spider-Man was Peter Parker. A young man, a similar age to himself, who suffered and lost what he held most dearly as he battled between his life as a masked vigilante and a broke but clever student from New York City. On that particular Wednesday, the young man had never been in such awe of the web-slinger who had held such a close place in his heart ever since he was a young boy. That young man, was yours truly.

Spider-Man: No Way Home is a triumphant love letter to everything which makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man. It not only has its much needed doses of fan service, but it is quite possibly the best Spider-Man story to be portrayed on the big screen. The main cast gives it their A-game, from Tom Holland as the titular hero to Alfred Molina reprising his role as Doctor Octopus. For those skeptics who saw Tom’s Spider-Man as nothing more than Tony Stark’s golden teenager, No Way Home proves that Tom can in fact encompass what it means to be Spider-Man, which quite possibly makes him the best iteration of the character to date. He goes through things in the film which no previous Spider-Man has gone through before, yet they are experiences which ultimately defines what it means to be Spider-Man. The film not only changes the course of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but also the course of the story of Spider-Man on the big screen. It is in a sense the Avengers: Endgame equivalent for Spider-Man. The stakes have never been higher, and the addition of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange adds for some intense multi-versal elements we have not yet seen on the big screen in the MCU. The fight scene between Spider-Man and Doctor Strange is impressive enough to rival Strange’s spectacular battle with Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War. Taking inspiration from one of the most controversial Spider-Man stories in the comics, ‘Spider-Man: One More Day‘, the film places some MCU twists on the comic storyline whilst still remaining relatively true to the source material. It was brilliant to see so many iconic Spidey villains on-screen together in live action, giving us what is essentially the closest version of a live-action Sinister Six (even though there wasn’t quite six). It is often difficult to have so many supporting characters on-screen without making a film feel crowded, but No Way Home somehow does it perfectly. The villains’ chemistry with not only Spider-Man, but also each other, was one of the best aspects of the film which I was pleasantly surprised by. I genuinely could not stop myself from grinning all the way through the film, it made me feel so lucky to be a film fan, a Marvel fan, but most of all, a Spider-Man fan.

I would be interested to watch this film from the perspective of a non-Marvel or Spider-Man fan, as I have no doubt there is still much enjoyment to be found. To the casual cinema-goer, Spider-Man: No Way Home is nothing short of the story of a young boy becoming a young man. It is a story of how far a person is willing to go to do the right thing. It is a story of an average teenager attempting to balance his normal life with the responsibility of being a superhero, which is exactly what Spider-Man is all about. The film shows that no matter how much loss and suffering Peter Parker goes through he is still willing to make sacrifices to do the right thing, which is exactly why we love him. Any doubt about Tom’s iteration of Spider-Man is gone by the end of the film. He truly epitomises what it means to be Spider-Man and Peter Parker, and the film makes it clear that the person who does the right thing is not Spider-Man, but Peter Parker.

Stay tuned for a spoiler-filled blog…

Just hanging around…