The Last Horror Movie (2004)

THE LAST HORROR MOVIE is another super-realistic slice of real life horror, taking the form of a documentary following the work of a real-life serial killer at work on the streets of London. The film itself has a gimmick that didn't really transfer to the TV showing I watched (in which the killer has 'taped over' an ordinary horror film DVD to give viewers a slice of the real thing) and as a whole it follows in the same footsteps as MAN BITES DOG, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, and many more besides.I'm not a fan of this whole sub-genre of cinema, it has to be said. THE LAST HORROR MOVIE goes out of its way to shock and disturb the viewer at all points and it certainly succeeds in doing that. I appreciate the way the protagonist breaks the fourth wall constantly and it's fair to say that Kevin Howarth gives a strong and charismatic performance, but films like this one lack the basic structures of a normal film: characters you like or sympathise with; a narrative structured in various acts; and a mixture of emotions. This is just a gruelling odyssey of endless murder and depravity, and as such it's a film you can hardly have said to enjoy.

From writer James Handel and director Julian Richards comes this reasonably interesting look at the life of a serial killer who decides that he'll document his actions, with the help of a troubled cameraman / assistant (Mark Stevenson), in his attempt to "write the final word on what constitutes horror." Its execution isn't exactly fresh, nor is it ever particularly insightful, but Richards manages to keep it entertaining and watchable. (Even if one isn't impressed, they only have to stick it out for 76 minutes.) It does have some grim, graphic, and uncomfortable scenes, but the main attraction is a charismatic central performance by Kevin Howarth as Max. Howarth is almost the whole show as he sits down and chats us up, asking us what we think of him and assuming that we're condemning his actions. He raises certain moral issues, while passing commentary on the whole idea of voyeurism.Gore and effects work are good; in particular, the immolation scene is impressive. It may be hard for some viewers to take this film as it doesn't shy away from showing imperiled people suffering and pleading for their lives. And all the time Max is maintaining his amused sense of detachment. He is an intriguing bugger, to be sure, as we see him interacting with other people in his life and keeping up the facade of being a more or less "normal", if somewhat eccentric, person on the surface. Where the film really gets more interesting is when Max is encouraging the assistant to increase his level of participation. Not surprisingly, the assistant is too bothered by conscience to be able to sink to Maxs' level of depravity.At least Handel and Richards come up with one entertaining gag, presenting their film as the home movies that Max and his buddy have recorded over the horror film on a videocassette.Overall, this is good but definitely not great stuff that should warrant a look for fans of the genre, even if it's naturally not in the same league as movies that came before it or may have inspired it such as "Peeping Tom" and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer".Seven out of 10.

The Last Horror Movie is a 2003 horror, the premise of which is that you the viewer have rented a "video nasty" from your local Choices, only to find that a serial killer has recorded over it with some of his sadistic killings.That's right: in 2003, you haven't made the switch to DVD yet.It might seem like a minor gripe, but it highlights the larger problem with The Last Horror Movie - that it graces us with its social commentary roughly 20 years too late. The theme of viewer-as-passive-participant is one that's been knocking around the horror genre for decades now, and whether or not it's still interesting, it's works best when it sneaks up on you. Subtext without the "sub-" leaves the audience feeling lectured, patronised and preached at. The Last Horror Movie takes this once-intriguing idea, waits til 2003, and then proceeds to bludgeon you over the head with. You're on the receiving end of a darned good telling-off for taking vicarious thrills in the suffering of others before you've even dunked your first hobnob. And that's the problem. The horror fan is being framed for a crime that, for the most part, he does not actually commit. The idea that anyone who watches a murder is on some level a wannabe murderer is older than Freud and as hamfistedly simplistic as the moral outrage leveled at The Simpsons back in the day for failing to provide good role models (seriously kids, that actually happened!). Of course, our protagonist only tells us to ask (incredibly leading) questions about ourselves, rather than outright calling us sickos. But there might as well be a banner reading "WE ARE DEALING WITH ISSUES, GUYS" scrolling along the bottom of the screen the whole time for all the nuance in this. It's ironic really that, of all the genres that might actually deserve this kind of treatment, it's horror that gets it. Horror has always had to fight to justify itself, sometimes with good cause. As a result, there's probably been more academic analysis of the genre than any other, and it _does_ filter through to the film-maker and to the viewer. Most serious horror fans (and those are probably the only people likely to "rent" this "video") at least have some inkling as to why they watch horror movies. Despite our intrepid serial killer host's assertions, it is a self-aware genre loved by a self-aware audience. A movie in which a trite Jennifer Aniston romcom is cut off after ten minutes by the twin video diaries of a couple who are horrifically mismatched and incapable of articulating even their most basic of feelings to one another might have been a much more interesting prospect, and possibly a lot more frightening.All postmodern ramblings aside, what really undermines the movie is not the trite, misguided social commentary or the lazy misjudgment of its likely core audience, but the fact that, really, it's not a very good horror film. The real art behind even the most lunkheadedly depraved "torture porn" is to repulse just enough to fascinate - to have the viewer peering out from behind his fingers. The fact that The Last Horror Movie is intentionally written to be watched on video just highlights how very very easy it is to stop watching the movie, long before the first smug "if you don't like it, why are you watching?" comment from the protagonist. But then, given the analysis of the horror fan on display, they probably thought that just half-showing some murders was enough. After all, you like watching murders, right? =D The short version is that this is a movie which is hampered by an implausible and dated premise from the word "go", and which does very little to redeem itself. If you want a tortuous unappealing slog through the ill-conceived mind of the serial killer, you could watch The Poughkeepsie Tapes. At least that guy knew how to point a camera.

huge spoiler alert.i'm about to give away the whole movie,in the hopes that no one else will ever watch this piece of excrement.a man gets off on taping people and getting their reactions before killing them, usually in a horribly disgusting way.oh yeah, he also talks to his victims as if it's all nothing more than a stroll in the park.he gives them little pep talks. for example, something along the lines of "Hey,it's okay,everything will be alright.keep your chin up".this is a paraphrase of some of the so called dialogue. that's pretty much the whole story.Oh, yeah we also get to hear him narrate too.what a joke.this is without a doubt the most vile,wretched thing anyone could make into a movie.it is not thrilling or exciting in any way,but stomach churning.less than 0/10