Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    18
  • Running Time:
    85 minutes
  • Released:
    2004
  • Country:
    United Kingdom
  • Director:
    Christopher Smith
  • Starring:
    Franka Potente
    Sean Harris
    Vas Blackwood
    Jeremy Sheffield
    Ken Campbell
    Paul Rattray
    Kelly Scott
  • Genre(s):
    Film
    Horror
    Live Action

Creep

05-02-2005 15:20 | 9060 views  |  Michael Mackenzie  |  Show Backlinks  |  Other "Creep" Content



Creep is Britain's answer to the horror creature feature, a lean, mean exercise in tension and atmosphere. Unfortunately, while similar monster-oriented horror movies like Bubba Ho-Tep have recently enjoyed some measure of success thanks to a combination of good writing and solid scares, held together by solid direction and great performances, Creep has more in common with second-rate efforts like Jeepers Creepers.

The plot is fairly straightforward. Franka Potente is Kate, a young socialite who likes to spend her time at loud parties, mixing it up with the local yuppies. Tonight, she thinks she's going to hook up with George Clooney, but unfortunately she finds herself without a ride to the venue and decides to take the underground instead. Bad move. After falling asleep while waiting for her train, she finds herself locked in the station for the night, all alone... or is she? Turns out that various other individuals are hanging out in the vicinity, including Guy, an acquaintance who wants to get into her pants (Jeremy Sheffield); a young homeless couple (Paul Rattray and Kelly Scott) and their Jack Russell; and George (Vas Blackwood), a sewage worker. Also on hand to crash the festivities is a bloodthirsty creature that lurks in the shadows and has a penchant for hauling its victims off into the maze of tunnels and causing much blood to fly. With such a party pooper in their midst, will Kate and her unlikely accomplices be able to survive the night?

The film gets off to a bad start, with an overly-long prologue involving two hapless sewage workers being stalked by the beast, and never really picks up. We then cut to a noisy party where we are introduced to Kate, a flat and unlikeable individual. This same trait is occupied by every other member of the cast: there are unfortunately no real characters, only cardboard cutouts introduced for the sole purpose of putting them in dangerous situations and watching them run around screaming. Run Lola Run's Franka Potente has more than enough experience with running, which is a good thing, because it is essentially all that her character is required to do. And run she does, first in high heels, then barefoot, then in a pair of boots that seem to materialise out of the blue. Potente gives it her all but sadly can do little with writer/director Christopher Smith's weak script, which dutifully trots out every single "bump in the night" cliché known to man. Potente's performance is actually characteristic of virtually the entire cast: everyone puts a great amount of effort into the movie, but unfortunately, for all their talents (barring Jeremy Sheffield, who can't act), none of them have enough screen presence to elevate the material.

Smith's direction is little better. The look of the film is characterised by grimy, badly framed and unfocused shots that are hapharzardly thrown up on the screen with little sense of pacing. Occasionally, he throws in the odd interesting composition, but by and large the film looks ugly and without flair. The decision to shoot the film in scope was also an unwise one, for all too often the main action is clustered into a traditional 1.85:1 area. The best element of the film, surprisingly, it not the creature, who turns out to be a bizarre approximation of Gollum from The Lord of the Rings and the demon from Hellraiser, but rather the sound design, which is often inspired, adding some atmosphere to what would otherwise be a very flat film. Flashy 5.1 sound effects alone can't save this production, however. Creep wants nothing more than to be a straightforward stalk-and-slash monster movie with loads of tension and some great kills. Unfortunately, though, it ultimately provides none of this.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    4
    4 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    8

Comments

#1 Posted: 05-02-2005 18:43
djnock
Member
Posts: 203

Report this post
I figured this would be a bog-standard horror flick - the trailers on TV seem to do a good job of marketing the film, so it'll no doubt make plenty of green, regardless of the quality.

And really, how many horror films have included subways somewhere in their plot? So, at the end of the day, the location isn't new either.

Shame to see Potente being utterly wasted though. I take it you were also a fan of Run Lola Run Michael?

D.J.
------
DVD Times Contributor
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 05-02-2005 22:59
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
I take it you were also a fan of Run Lola Run Michael?

You betcha! One of the best examples of the MTV style actually working in a film.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#3 Posted: 05-02-2005 23:10
phaideaux2000
Spel chequer
Posts: 330

Report this post
Thought:
The 'MTV style' is a strange term that seems to have dropped into common usage.
I wonder what term people used to describe similarly skewed cinematography and rapid editing when Russ Meyer was using it in the 60's?
ABC style?
NBC style?
We now return you to your scheduled programming.....
;)
------
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 05-02-2005 23:35
bradavon
Banned
Posts: 2907

Report this post
While I will concede and admit there is a level of bias to seeing a fellow European on screen I've still be pleased with the level of acting Franka Potente has portrayed thus far, it is therefore a pity she is picking weak work of late. It's clear she is trying (a llittle to hard) to become part of the mainstream English speaking world.

I've not see this but agree 1.85:1 would be a much better aspect ratio for this type of film. 2.35:1 is much better suited for "bigger" films.
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 06-02-2005 12:06
Phil Q
Member
Posts: 1815

Report this post
I went to see Creep at the easyCinema in Milton Keynes last weekend. Not only did their crappy projector break down irretrievably halfway through, but they were showing it in the wrong aspect ratio. So, as one of the few people to have seen the film in both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, I can say that it works much better in the latter!

Anyway, I liked the film much more than you guys did. Purely personal reasons - I'm a sucker for any film set in locations I recognise, and I love the idea of forgotten tube stations (see Gary A Sherman's excellent Death Line aka Raw Meat for a very similar idea!). Also I'm always happy to see any British or European film that doesn't make the usual pathetic concessions to American audiences.

As for the film itself, I wouldn't characterise it as a bog-standard horror flick, if only because it's very much more nasty than modern audiences are used to seeing. The gore was sufficient to drive out 4 people from my screening (and good riddance to 'em). There have been some really terrible British horror films in recent years, as anyone who's been to the opening nights of FrightFest will know (remember Octane, or Nine Lives featuring Paris Hilton?). Creep isn't one of them, and it's a hell of a lot better than any of those "I Know What You Screamed About Urban Legends At Your Final Destination Last Valentine's Day" cliche-fests.
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 06-02-2005 18:54
Darth_Fisto
Account Disabled
Posts: 162

Report this post
*SPOILERS*

I thought Creep was quite poor. Just another horror film. Not awful, just bland. Some good bits, like seeing the thing running after her in the background, out of focus. But there was nothing new here, and with the exception of one scene (operation, knife :eek: ) wasn't particularly nasty.

But the sound was definitely the best part, kept me "in" the movie when I might have drifted off the sleep.
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 07-02-2005 08:35
AntonyW
Member
Posts: 111

Report this post
I totally agree with Phil Q. Good old "throwback to the 70s" style horror movie. Yes, you have to leave your brain at home, but I found this enjoyably nasty. Unfortunately I wish people would stop casting the average looking at best Franka Potente in sex symbol roles.
What are "sold cares" btw?? ;)
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 07-02-2005 09:20
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
I thought it was far worse than 'an average horror film'; it's possibly the worst movie I've ever seen at the theatre.

The script was just staggeringly poor, none of the characters reacted believably, the monster was so badly conceived people were cracking up all over the cinema when he was revealed, and particularly when he dangled from the ceiling like a monkey, there was no tension or atmosphere, the plot made NO SENSE at all, the patchy motive given to Gollum was a ridiculous cliché, every performance was terrible and the only scene that might be considered disturbing was in such vulgar, voyeuristic bad taste that it was nothing more than pornography.

Absolute garbage with no redeeming features whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. I'd have given it zero.
------
20.
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 07-02-2005 10:28
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
What are "sold cares" btw??

Solid scares. Damn my poor proofreading skills!
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#10 Posted: 07-02-2005 10:29
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
the only scene that might be considered disturbing was in such vulgar, voyeuristic bad taste that it was nothing more than pornography.

Which was that?
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#11 Posted: 07-02-2005 10:31
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
The medical scene with the homeless girl, which I found really quite disgusting. It's how I'd imagine a snuff tape might look.
------
20.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 07-02-2005 11:04
Phil Q
Member
Posts: 1815

Report this post
It's a horror movie. It's supposed to be "disgusting" and in "bad taste".

If you don't like horror movies, you could always go and see Urban Legends: Final Cut or something.
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 07-02-2005 11:12
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
The medical scene with the homeless girl, which I found really quite disgusting. It's how I'd imagine a snuff tape might look.

I thought that was quite restrained, actually. You never actually saw the results of the "operation".
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#14 Posted: 07-02-2005 11:16
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
"It's a horror movie. It's supposed to be "disgusting" and in "bad taste"."

You seem to have confused 'disturbing' and 'disgusting'. It's the difference between feeling afraid and feeling nauseous.
------
20.
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 07-02-2005 11:45
Phil Q
Member
Posts: 1815

Report this post
No, I haven't confused anything.

Horror films are meant to provoke a variety of reactions - unease, fear, shock, hysteria, disgust, nausea, (occasionally) mirth and ultimately relief when it's all over.

If the director wants to make his audience afraid, he may be able to achieve it without actually showing anything "scary" on screen (Robert Wise's The Haunting being perhaps the ultimate example). Alternatively, he can take the on-screen gore route to get a more basic "gut" reaction! Both approaches (or any combination thereof) are equally valid as far as I'm concerned.
Quote this post
#16 Posted: 07-02-2005 11:49
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
Well, I disagree. I think disgusting your audience is a cheap and easy solution to a very patchy script and lack of ideas. But I concede the point.

Regardless, it's still a woefully inadequate film in every way.
------
20.
Quote this post
#17 Posted: 07-02-2005 16:01
phaideaux2000
Spel chequer
Posts: 330

Report this post
The chestburst scene in the first "Alien" is one that covers both terms, showing the line can be blurred... and not at the expense of a quality piece of work.
------
Quote this post
#18 Posted: 07-02-2005 16:04
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
Have you seen the bit I'm talking about, Phai? It isn't the detail that makes it disgusting, it's how the camera lingers on someone begging and pleading for her life. It's as if in the absence of genuine ideas, the writer decided to substitute scares and tension with cruelty and sadism.
------
20.
Quote this post
#19 Posted: 07-02-2005 16:44
phaideaux2000
Spel chequer
Posts: 330

Report this post
Must confess I haven't seen "Creep" - just curious after seeing the trailer a few weeks ago.
:)
------
Quote this post
#20 Posted: 09-02-2005 00:43
jiffray
Member
Posts: 46

Report this post
Just seen the film and thought it was abysmal!! Not scary, gripping, tense or anything at any stage. The film is just about bearable until you see what is actually doing the killing then the film just becomes really dire. No history of the killer, where it comes from, why it's killing etc, it's just a random killer..........how convenient. PATHETIC film in my opinion!!
------
If it bleeds, we can kill it!
Quote this post
#21 Posted: 09-02-2005 01:01
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
There was a patchy motive and back story given to the monster. But it was so feeble and pathetic you might have subconsciously overlooked it.
------
20.
Quote this post
#22 Posted: 09-02-2005 02:48
Mr G Kaplan
Member
Posts: 3

Report this post
"I've not see this but agree 1.85:1 would be a much better aspect ratio for this type of film. 2.35:1 is much better suited for "bigger" films."

Now go watch "Halloween" to see how a wide frame can be effectively used in the horror/slasher genre.;)
Quote this post
#23 Posted: 16-02-2005 09:42
Lowres
Member
Posts: 3

Report this post
I'd have to agree with Jiffray to a point, the film was ok up to the point that you saw what was doing the killing.... although it was very generically conventional.

From the time when you saw the killer it went down hill rapidly. There was a little backstory of the killer present but it was done in such a way that most people won't even pick up on it at all (I went to see this with 3 other people and not one had picked up on any of the back story at all.

I could have looked past this had the film not degenerated in the way it did, there were so many inconsistencies with the killer I lost count!!!
Quote this post
#24 Posted: 17-02-2005 13:47
Lex Luthor
Criminal Member
Posts: 189

Report this post
Quote:
I've not see this but agree 1.85:1 would be a much better aspect ratio for this type of film. 2.35:1 is much better suited for "bigger" films.


What rot! Any film can work in 2.35:1 provided the shots are composed decently and the wide ratio is used properly.
Quote this post
#25 Posted: 17-03-2005 13:44
smooth driver
Member
Posts: 12

Report this post
I'm really pleased to see that there are one or two people who thought this film was good, cos I thought it was really good!! One of the best horror films ive seen for a while actually.

I thought it was spooky, and gory and it made me jump and to me that's what a horror film should be (ok, it can be other things as well).

It wasn't flawless of course. They wouldn't lock a tube station when you can see a passenger still on the platform, and i thought there was one scene in the film which WAS ridiculous and that was when they could have easily beaten the 'creep' to death but instead she decided to stand there and scream while the guy got killed, but apart from that i didn't have many complaints. She could have easily been running around in her high heels and spending lots of time screaming which would probably have happened if this was in america, so i give it credit for not doing that.

It would have been very good to learn more about the 'creeps' life and situation but there was enough there to give you a good idea.
Quote this post