Three students decide to study people's fears for a video documentary college class as sort of a "fear study". Initially they simply interview their subjects but then one of the students progresses to setting up situations where the subjects are forced to confront their fears.
Pretty much universally positive reviews from horror magazines and websites were given to this film, and I feel bad that I cannot be as supportive. While I think this film has a lot of strengths, and may be better than the average film, it also has some weak points, too.
I have to say the film is very admirable with regards to the gore on the topless dancer, and the dismembered girl in the bed. Other gore scenes were also decent, and there is no short supply of blood, and a special effects that shines beyond the budget. I also enjoyed the gritty sex scene, reminiscent of the style of "Derailed" (though the sex scenes are quite different).
The film as a whole has a lot of sexuality to it, which I find to be a flaw. I liked the painting of nude woman, with the addition of her blue hair, but soon realized it was just he first step towards more and more nudity. Usually, I am the last one to frown on nudity, gratuitous or otherwise. But I felt this film was using it as a crutch, that despite having a strong story, they felt they could not get by on merit alone. And that is a shame.
As far as being compared to recent Clive Barker films, this one is clearly better than "Book of Blood" (which was just boring), and on par with "Midnight Meat Train". I may like "Train" slightly better, but both have their strong and weak points. Barker's original story is roughly 40 pages, including some casual references to Kant and Bentham (and unfortunately Dickens). The film tends to ignore these intellectual touchstones and veers off into more pornographic territory. They do, however, take the "fear of meat" to a new height.
"Dread" was chosen as the 2010 horror film of the year by HorrorHound contributor Dave Kosanke (with Jon Kitley agreeing). Kosanke thinks the film is "primordial and raw" and "even manages to one-up the story". Another HorrorHound contributor, Aaron Christensen, disagreed and felt the film was too long and would work best as an anthology coupled with one or two other Barker stories. Incidentally, he chose "Black Swan" as the year's best.
Thankfully, none of them picked "Harpoon" like Aaron Crowell did (that film had few things right going for it). And I have to agree with Christensen that "Black Swan" easily trumps "Dread" (though I think Adam Green's "Frozen" was also a worthy contender). I would not put "Dread" in my top three for 2010.
I would, though, not necessarily endorse Christensen's idea that this be squeezed into an anthology. While "Book of Blood" clearly ran over its needed time, this film seemed to go over by mere minutes for me. The writer added enough to the original story to really have it stand on its own two legs. I would say that it could be trimmed five or ten minutes, as some scenes just went on too long for me. But it has enough story and depth to really be its own film.
Ultimately I do not see this being one of the strongest films of recent years. The gore effects are amazing, and I hope the crew behind that goes on to bigger things. The cinematography is also stellar. But beyond that, I do not know. I feel it went on a tad too long, and what should have been a story about "dread" became too exaggerated for me. It pushes the level of realism too hard and enters a surreal stage. And that is not dreadful. Psychologically unstable, maybe, but not scary.
Pretty much universally positive reviews from horror magazines and websites were given to this film, and I feel bad that I cannot be as supportive. While I think this film has a lot of strengths, and may be better than the average film, it also has some weak points, too.
I have to say the film is very admirable with regards to the gore on the topless dancer, and the dismembered girl in the bed. Other gore scenes were also decent, and there is no short supply of blood, and a special effects that shines beyond the budget. I also enjoyed the gritty sex scene, reminiscent of the style of "Derailed" (though the sex scenes are quite different).
The film as a whole has a lot of sexuality to it, which I find to be a flaw. I liked the painting of nude woman, with the addition of her blue hair, but soon realized it was just he first step towards more and more nudity. Usually, I am the last one to frown on nudity, gratuitous or otherwise. But I felt this film was using it as a crutch, that despite having a strong story, they felt they could not get by on merit alone. And that is a shame.
As far as being compared to recent Clive Barker films, this one is clearly better than "Book of Blood" (which was just boring), and on par with "Midnight Meat Train". I may like "Train" slightly better, but both have their strong and weak points. Barker's original story is roughly 40 pages, including some casual references to Kant and Bentham (and unfortunately Dickens). The film tends to ignore these intellectual touchstones and veers off into more pornographic territory. They do, however, take the "fear of meat" to a new height.
"Dread" was chosen as the 2010 horror film of the year by HorrorHound contributor Dave Kosanke (with Jon Kitley agreeing). Kosanke thinks the film is "primordial and raw" and "even manages to one-up the story". Another HorrorHound contributor, Aaron Christensen, disagreed and felt the film was too long and would work best as an anthology coupled with one or two other Barker stories. Incidentally, he chose "Black Swan" as the year's best.
Thankfully, none of them picked "Harpoon" like Aaron Crowell did (that film had few things right going for it). And I have to agree with Christensen that "Black Swan" easily trumps "Dread" (though I think Adam Green's "Frozen" was also a worthy contender). I would not put "Dread" in my top three for 2010.
I would, though, not necessarily endorse Christensen's idea that this be squeezed into an anthology. While "Book of Blood" clearly ran over its needed time, this film seemed to go over by mere minutes for me. The writer added enough to the original story to really have it stand on its own two legs. I would say that it could be trimmed five or ten minutes, as some scenes just went on too long for me. But it has enough story and depth to really be its own film.
Ultimately I do not see this being one of the strongest films of recent years. The gore effects are amazing, and I hope the crew behind that goes on to bigger things. The cinematography is also stellar. But beyond that, I do not know. I feel it went on a tad too long, and what should have been a story about "dread" became too exaggerated for me. It pushes the level of realism too hard and enters a surreal stage. And that is not dreadful. Psychologically unstable, maybe, but not scary.