zandertowne Reviews

Active Shooter (2020)

Another Wasted Opportunity

[4/10 · 3 January 2021]

If you are happy with an entirely serviceable little film that makes no attempt to be anything more than the ultra-low budget expanded short film that this movie feels like, than you might enjoy watching this one. It's short. There's always that. And to give credit where it's due, the cinematography is excellent, the score is good, the sound is decent, and direction is efficient if you only judge it visually - but more on that in a bit. The production design (assuming they built that one solitary set) is very good and the actors do a decent-to-very-good job with what they've been given. But I am frustrated by how little effort the filmmakers put into trying to make the film anything more than the easiest thing it could be. Four people in one bathroom. The basic idea is actually quite interesting, and the idea of them suspecting that one of them might be the shooter, opens the script up to a variety of deep possibilities if the writer was willing to tackle them. But he's not. In fact, he more or less chickens out on daring to delve too deeply; if someone is gonna get hurt then they are naturally going to deserve it somehow - which is actually the exact OPPOSITE of what most mass shootings teach us. So there is only one person to blame for all the inherent weaknesses and massive missed opportunities and that's the writer/director. The film is technically well-made and his visual use of the camera in the confined space is good, but he doesn't push for anything more than a surface "twist" or two (both of which could be seen coming from a mile away) but he also ignores everything else that makes a movie good. He sets up interesting dynamics amongst the four characters but cannot develop them believably within the context of the situation. It's like they repeatedly forget that an active shooter might be right outside the door. That they are in a life and death situation. They also seem to become progressively less intelligent about their situation the more time passes. If that was done as part of an overall theme showing the lack of natural instincts or the ability to act in a threatening situation compared to the "accepted" qualities of office politics than it would serve a purpose. But it doesn't. Those aren't things this filmmaker wants to address. He just needs people to be stupid or to act out of character. And maybe he doesn't understand how forensics works, or how to blockade a room, or that bleach sprayed into someone's eyes actually does damage, it doesn't just sting - but a decent writer/director would care enough to find out about them, if he was interested in making a good movie! And one final note: how many credits does one guy need? A film with four people in one bathroom and he needs credit as Location Manager AND Casting, while at the same time acknowledging he needs an assistant to cast those four people? And he needs a credit for carpentry and collecting props? I have seen several micro-budget films where the directors literally not only designed everything but constructed special props and special effects, did their own lighting and often ran the camera themselves, and never felt the need to be given credit other than writer/producer/director/designer. Maybe if the creator of Active Shooter had been less concerned with telling people every little thing he had a hand in (which is the NORM for low budget indies) and been more concerned with having something to say with his film, it would be more than tolerable.

Confession (I) (2020)

The Type of Film I Keep Searching For

[10/10 · 6 November 2020]

This is exactly what I keep hoping to stumble on when I take chances on low budget independent films - especially thrillers! If you don't have the money for explosions and massive set-pieces than instead give us challenging ideas and a well-crafted script to compensate. It must be said at the top this is truly a unique movie; depending on what you like in movies that could be a great thing or a bad thing. If you'd rather watch any wanna-be Star Wars clone instead of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or any 80's style mindless slasher film instead of something like Fight Club, then this probably won't be your cup of tea. If you don't like movies that make you think about things, especially personal beliefs, this ain't your flick. This movie will make you think. This movie will make you start asking questions, even if you never thought to before. I am kind of amazed anyone had the guts to even attempt this, let alone do so well with it! I read the trivia and saw that it was made for a really low budget and it's a credit to the filmmakers that I never would have known from just having watched it. It never feels "small". Yes, a lot of time is spent in different interrogation rooms (and that was a smart choice - there being more than one - so visually you're not always looking at the same thing) but it's shot and staged in such a way that it's not just people sitting around a table. It's a complex story but it handles it in a fashion that never treats viewers like idiots - if anything it sometimes makes you work hard to keep up. It never keeps repeating plot points again and again as if we can't remember something important that happened five minutes ago. I personally love complex films with complex characters, and everybody here feels like a real, three-dimensional person. The detectives aren't super-cops, or the best detectives in the department - they're just people holding down a job. It makes you accept how they're handling things especially when things get weird. And, trust me, they DO get weird. But not off the wall, lazy out-of-left-field weird, and a second viewing might prove we should have seen it coming from the start. The film subtly changes direction several times and there is a shocking revelation at about the halfway point, and from then on it really demands you put your thinking cap on! From there, until an almost 2001 type ending, the movie goes someplace I was surprised it dared to go. There's a stretch in the middle that might take a little patience to get through for some folks but it's worth it for the climax, and it's also probably going to be the part you keep thinking about after the movie is over. I personally didn't mind it because I enjoyed the clever dialogue. Then again, I am a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin and Paddy Chayefsky, so I love dialogue. There are some great performances in this film - and a few that are a little shaky but nothing to distract. Strong visuals. Great music throughout. And way better edited than most other indie films I've seen. And it's all in the service of a really challenging script. It's in a completely different league than most super low budget films made by people you've never heard of. And even if some parts of the film make you uncomfortable, or if it expects a lot from the viewer, it really is a worthwhile film and the kind no studio would have ever dared to make. I can't wait to see what the filmmakers do next!

Don't Run (2019)

When I Think About It I Want To Cry

[5/10 · 9 May 2020]

Started off with such promise. Obviously super low budget but, hey, clever can overcome that. And some of the performances seemed like the director had merely cast his friends instead of actors (and by far the worst performances came from the two "detectives") but the mother and son were believable and their roles competently written. In addition the premise was original and intriguing and I was interested in going on the journey the film would take me on. And then it started - not so much "falling apart" as "stalling". Filmmaker's weaknesses, or inexperience, began to assert themselves. The interesting set-up was never further developed. Incidents occurring to further the plot seemed to carry no weight, often seeming as if they were forgotten about as soon as they occurred. Key connections seemed to be missing (possibly a production issue with missing scenes). Detectives, social workers and other characters seemed written without any relationship to the real world (and the writer/director might have believed he had given himself a pass because of a twist at the end, but they all served to further kick the viewer out of the movie while they were happening nevertheless). Real credit to the eerie depiction of the main entity (although with one exception the scenes are never directed to take advantage of the effect) but the rules established for the monster in the closet seemed to change or be forgotten about depending on the scene. But worst of all the pace and tone throughout was remarkably consistent with never any variation - no growing threat, or suspense, no continuing involvement or concern with the main character - so that well before the first hour was up I honestly didn't care what was happening and only continued watching because I dared to hope it would redeem itself in the closing minutes. Unfortunately, despite a nice little final moment in the closing scene, the ending is the worst, least imaginative sort of lame cop-out. LITERALLY, the worst lame sort of cop-out! My estimation of the project went from hopeful, to considering it merely hampered by some poor writing and uninspired direction, to bored disappointment and eventually anger for a climax that makes the 75 minutes spent watching it totally wasted. Ah well... better luck next time filmmakers! And if I am seriously bored, or drunk, I might even give you another chance.

This Is Your Death (2017)

Aims For Realism

[8/10 · 17 November 2019]

When I read the synopsis I thought it must be a satire, so it shocked the heck outta me to discover just how seriously this film treats it's premise of a network television program that presents people killing themselves for money. It plays everything one hundred per cent straight; gives characters believable motivations; tries to navigate around the tricky issues of how it could be allowed on the air and how people might react to it, etc. Performances are sincere and credible; the direction is serviceable - primarily to be commended for the emphasis on making everything as real as possible; for the most part the script is intelligent and astute. And for the majority of the film my only complaint was that it could have delved even deeper into the moral, ethical and social implications even as it was clearly telegraphing where the movie was headed. The inevitable connection of plot threads which otherwise might seem a little heavy-handed seemed the perfect opportunity to really explore the complex issues being addressed. Sadly the film stumbled hard towards the finale in a desperate attempt to end on a positive note, even if that meant suddenly hurling the carefully established reality out the window and becoming stock, shallow and predictable. It sold itself out for a "happy-ish" ending. In that context what had earlier seemed simply a bit too obvious (you can clearly guess which characters are going to end up on the program) suddenly becomes more manipulatively pedestrian. I understand the urge to present a positive, hopeful message, but the switch from dark to light needs to be handled with more finesse and caution otherwise - as happens here - you simply spoil what was otherwise an excellent little film. It felt like a desperate alteration instead of something being built towards - perhaps it was imposed on the filmmakers during postproduction? Yeah, I'll choose to think that, rather than the filmmakers simply lost the courage to be true to their tale: which, in a nutshell, is the difference between something like Network, and what we have here.

It's in the Blood (2012)

Basically an Arty Student Film that Somehow Scored Lance Henriksen

[5/10 · 17 November 2019]

It's not confusing, it's just so laden with obvious symbolism and deliberate ambiguity (like all too many faux "intellectual" student films) that it sloshes about struggling for "depth" and "deeper meaning" while never really delivering either. Out of focus shots and repetitious edits might mask some no-budget deficiencies but this film HAD a budget - they just didn't know what to do with it. Except hire Lance Henriksen. This is literally a case where it's worth watching just for the man's performance. It's a shame they didn't have a more focused script to be worthy of his involvement. Instead we have a twenty-minute arty student film stretched ponderously out to eighty minutes (yet feels a lot longer) when the same premise, intelligently presented (and grounded by Mr. Henriksen) could have made an excellent film at twice the length. The father and lost son dynamic; the horrifying incident in their past; the injury in the woods and, yes, even the threat of "something else in the woods" as a metaphor, all of these could have successfully been presented in a coherent fashion - even realistically as in Deliverance - instead of obscured by the art-house/third-year film student approach that makes this film far less than what it could have been. It's not that the film is simply bad - it isn't - it's just another example of "with a little more effort it could have been so much better." And then it might have been the showcase Lance Henriksen has long deserved.

Body at Brighton Rock (2019)

Spending Time with an Irritating Half-wit

[3/10 · 23 September 2019]

If you're going to have a movie with one character off by themselves for the majority of the run-time then there must be a lot of interesting things happening for the character to deal with, or the character must be particularly interesting. And it doesn't hurt if the actor is charismatic. This movie avoids all three of those options as if they were the plague. They make it clear (in fact it's necessary) that the main character is incompetent and stupid and all her actions will be thoughtless at best, and reckless at worst. But she's not interesting or involving or appealing to make time spent with her tolerable. And actually very little happens until the obvious dream sequences (not very inventive or gripping) and all of it is downright boring. It's a wasted hour and a half in the company of an irritating half-wit. If that's your idea of a good time, watch this film.

The Gatehouse (2016)

Perfect Bits in a Flawed Film.

[6/10 · 4 July 2019]

This is an odd one to review, because I feel like it should be recommended, despite the fact that it's not really more than 60% successful. It is unquestionably flawed throughout and yet worth watching and enjoyable regardless. I felt such a strong respect for not only the bits writer/director Martin Gooch got right, but for what he was attempting during the bits where he failed.

The very young actress Scarlett Rayner is the one element that is perfect from start to finish. And there are some particularly good supporting characters. But a fairy-tale tone in a realistically grounded film is a serious challenge to even attempt, let alone pull off as successively as is accomplished here. Plot holes, underdeveloped character motivations and unjustified behaviors, and, of course, an excessive over reliance on "bad dreams" to add some horror/scary scenes that otherwise serve no purpose except to provide good trailer moments are all here as well. I noticed them. I'm not denying them. And yet... even simply cranking out this review tempts me to watch the film again.

The Hatred (2018)

The Hat Could Have Written a Better Script

[2/10 · 16 June 2019]

I'll say this for the boring, tedious and completely flat and uninteresting mini-feature (clocking in at barely an hour) The Hatred: it has some nice photography and even a couple of interesting camera compositions. Does that make it worth sitting through? Absolutely not! You have the simplest of revenge plots, a nice little twist when a dead man is resurrected to assist, all the potential in the world and yet it is rendered dull and uninteresting by the writer's complete inability to flesh out the story in any way. Couple that with direction so desperate to be "ARTISTIC!!!!" that it manages to make stalking, killing and haunting, boring, boring and boring and your failure is assured. Everything other than the photography and a few camera angles seems deliberately done to frustrate the viewer and sabotage the film. There's nothing like showing us a bunch of men standing around and then having the voice over of a young girl - who was not there - tell us what they're thinking. Hey, isn't that what dialogue is for? Or how about never showing the incidents we might get involved in so that you can waste our time showing people just walking in the snow?

And I cannot stress this enough - there is a special place in Hades reserved for the near-ceaseless narration as it drones on with all the depth and literary quality of a computer program randomly slamming words into a sentence. It actually makes pretentious, gibberish sound good in comparison. I wish I was joking but I'm not. What she says LITERALLY makes no sense and/or contradicts itself. It is the worst sort of nonsense pretending to be profound. And the young actress speaking the nonsense may make an interesting visual - staring off into space with her dark oversized hat - but the rest of her performance, and certainly her insipid line-readings, are equally still and emotionless. Her hat has a lot more charisma and screen presence and could probably handle the narration better also. For that matter, the hat could have written a better screenplay.

Add in the pointless ending (that makes no sense) and I am tempted to believe that this project is simply a bad-joke version of a bad movie; I find it hard to believe that anybody could have spent this much effort on such a ridiculous script unless it was their intention to make something awful. I mean, they had to know...right? They had to.

The Heretics (2017)

Best Seen if Brain Dead

[1/10 · 15 June 2019]

It's just weak, or lazy, when the only way to infuse suspense, horror or even surprise, into your movie is to resort to dreams, or visions. You know, the kind of thing you don't have to justify, or explain, or worry about, because the character wakes up or "snaps out of it"? The filmmakers just took up screen time and had a "trailer moment" that ultimately isn't earned or deserved.

Or how about the weak, obvious dialogue; like when a character asks someone with facial burns "Who did that to you?" instead of "What happened to you?" because the writer needs it to lead to an explanation of who did it and can't figure out a more believable way of leading to it. Or how about having someone call with a clue (that they wouldn't believably think to share with that person) only to deliver the news and then say "I have to go now" since the ONLY reason that scene exists is so the first character can learn what the second character knows.

I checked out before it was over because I was tired of having my intellect insulted by the deficiencies of the writers. You might find enjoyment if you're watching it AND you're brain-dead... or if you don't let the lack of decent acting, writing, plot development, realistic characters or scenes, or quality direction stand in your way of wasting an hour and a half with a movie.

Hostile (I) (2017)

Hostile is How I Felt After Suffering Through It

[2/10 · 15 June 2019]

Starts out interesting enough, if a bit clichéd. When the girl takes a sharp turn off the road and traps herself in her car the film takes a turn toward interesting...and then slides into unbelievable, and then down to tedious, continuing to the depths of tediously unbelievable, before tumbling with a splat into the sucky-tank. There are some decent scenes in the trapped vehicle which are then disrupted by flashbacks revealing unlikable characters and unbelievable relationships. Then everything decent about the post apocalyptic sequence is hurled out the window as the pain of a broken leg is, for the most part, forgotten; monster behavior is inconsistent (supposedly hates a flashlight beam but will move toward a brighter flare pointing at it?) and even the leads ability to aim a gun, or a willingness to use it effectively varies as the "script" requires. Cap that off with the stupidest, least believable or logical ending I have seen in decades! I understand it's supposed to add unexpected depth but it is so far fetched and contrived, and worse, rather obvious before it occurs, that it is the thinnest thought passing itself off as an idea. And it didn't help that, not only did I hate the lead character, I thought the actress playing her was equally bad. I kinda hate myself for watching it. Life is wayyyyyyyyy too short.

Peacock (2010)

Cillian Murphy Simply Rules!

[8/10 · 18 May 2019]

Cillian Murphy shows what great acting is in this strange, delicate, hard to label film. He plays one character with two distinct separate identities (and more than a few hints of a third) and it is almost impossible to believe either one is Cillian Murphy! From one scene to the next I'd swear his facial bone structure changes, so amazingly complete are his transformations.

For many the film will probably be too slow and carefully paced, and there are a few times when it did feel a little sluggish, but at no point did I ever feel I had a firm idea of where it was going, and I was so curious to find out. That sense of experiencing something completely unexpected is rare in motion pictures these days. Without being a traditional thriller there was considerable suspense, albeit of a more intellectual kind. And at no point were we subjected to cardboard cut-out characters or two dimensional plot-advancers, even in the smallest of roles.

It ends a little ambiguously, which is a momentary disappointment, until you realize that the notion of "mystery" is at the core of this film and leaving us to ponder what the future might hold for these people is perfectly in keeping with it. Ultimately, when it comes to human beings, nothing can be predicted, and you have to sometimes question every thing you think you know.

And can I mention again just how amazing Cillian Murphy is? This even eclipses Breakfast on Pluto (as a performance, but not the film as a whole).

How to Save Us (2014)

Good Premise, Shame the Screenplay Was AWOL

[3/10 · 14 February 2019]

When a really short film drags by, something is definitely wrong. Here we had an original premise and a clever solution to the super micro-budget dilemma: Tasmania evacuated (but not destroyed) and, apparently, overrun by ghosts who you can only occasionally see. One man goes looking for his brother and we cut back and forth between the two of them wandering the empty countryside. I saw where another critic once said "A premise is not a story", and I'll modify that a bit here to say "A premise is not a screenplay". In this case the writer/director, Jason Trost, did have a story he wanted to tell but he simply had know idea how to go about it.

So we have a film which has attractive shots of a lone individual walking, or sitting, but that's literally almost all they do. There's a few potentially chilling scenes that are not chilling, with a small number of minimalist, but effective special effects. Yet the premise is never intelligently developed or believably presented. And to make matters worse, the intrepid writer/director casts himself as one of the leads (with the most lines, but since he's kinda talking to a radio it doesn't really count as dialogue) but the poor chap has less screen presence than a potato and seems about as invested in his performance as an exhausted man waiting for a bus. And by the end we are left to wonder if the whole thing was just a metaphor, because if it's supposed to be happening in reality it missed the mark even further. In the end, a nice looking film, and a promising concept, poorly served and tediously delivered. I don't hate myself for having watched it but I don't hate myself for looking at a bowl of soggy cereal either; yet if you're expecting something tasty, both will prove seriously disappointing, and possibly leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Friends Don't Let Friends (2017)

Low Budget "Identity" Starts Fine Then Slides Into Sloppy

[3/10 · 17 January 2019]

If you have seen James Mangold's excellent 2003 film "Identity" you've basically seen this movie - except done correctly. This one starts decently, even if poorly shot with no production value to speak of, but the actors are game (credit to them for giving it their all) and I'm willing to cut a lot of slack while a movie gets going (called "willing suspension of disbelief"). But then the friends get to the "desert" (the one with all the city lights a mile away in half the shots) and from that point on it's a continuous slide into awful. The filmmaker acts like having a twist at the end (or suggesting it's a dream or happening at the magical gates of hell - I won't say what cuz that would be a spoiler), excuses every inconsistency or unbelievable behavior or stupid action, and even if you're lazy enough to insist it does, the audience still has to suffer through them! This flick is three fourths all the way; one fourth promising and three fourths lame. For every nice little visual there are countless shots that are poorly lit and unimaginative. Add in poor gore effects (for the record, you can't bite off a tongue with your mouth closed - molars don't work like that!) and, possibly, the very worst portrayal of a mental health care professional that has ever been written and you have this movie in a nutshell. The twist is tired and clumsy (unless done right) and so ends the movie making you regret suffering through it. If you like watching small flicks like this just to study everyplace they went wrong, give it a shot. Or if you're really into frustration and suffering - your own. They had a chance - decent premise and everything - but despite the actors best efforts the writer/director repeatedly shot his film in the foot and then forced us to watch it limp sadly away.

And I'd question ANY 10 star review that doesn't think there's anything wrong with ANY film, let alone a micro-budget backyard production like this one...I'm just saying... either they worked on the film, know someone who worked on the film, or they didn't see it.

Monday at 11:01 A.M. (2016)

Got as Far as the Door is Furniture

[1/10 · 6 January 2019]

Perhaps it's a bit unfair to review this title only having seen half of it, but if you knew some of the films I managed to sit through that would be review enough. I love me my creepy, Twilight Zone-ish thrillers - regardless of budget - and I'm even willing to cut a lot of slack on the technical levels if the script is sharp, but this one... oh my. When the writing is so bad that every conversation is unbelievable; when the lead actor's performance is soooooooo bad that one must assume he is either not human, or speech is new to him (he's also the writer/producer so he hired himself - hasn't he ever seen himself before?); and when everyone (writer/actors/producer/director) are so checked out of the film - or naturally dim - that no one notices that during a dining room conversation about two imposing double doors, the actors repeatedly, and pointedly, refer to it as a piece of furniture as if they've never seen doors before...well that's too many strikes for me to waste time on. Doesn't help that I'm pretty sure the "twist" ending has been done a hundred times before (hint: I bet it rhymes with "lead"). I could be wrong - maybe there's an awesome last half waiting in the wings - but then again if I swim out into the middle of the ocean maybe I'll be magically saved by dolphins before I drown, but I don't think I'll risk it.

Hypothermia (2010)

Like Opening a Decently Wrapped Present to Find a Dead Duck

[2/10 · 1 January 2019]

It's always interesting to see how quickly a movie can go from promising to a great lump of awful. Hypothermia must have sounded pretty good as a pitch; a family is trapped on a frozen lake by a monster beneath the ice. There's a lot of possibilities there, not that any of them would be explored in the little more than seventy minutes that this movie takes to careen from potentially interesting, all the way down to sucky-ville where it crashes with a spectacular flopping sound. It doesn't just go there, it boards a roller coaster so the trip to Horrible is fast, and you're into before you know it. The movie starts out decently with believable, if uninteresting, family interactions; the quick introduction of the looming threat and then the insertion of obnoxious strangers to complicate the situation. But then...then comes the monster part. Where it degenerates to from there is best summed up by the moment when two women, bloodied and having witnessed multiple deaths, are walking across the ice with the monster threatening from beneath, and the older woman says "Just ignore it". And I kinda wish I was making that up...but I'm not.

It's great to see Michael Rooker being given a leading role, and he is always good, but Blanche Baker literally scowls, and glares peevishly through an undeveloped and underwritten role as his wife. It remains a mystery to me why she would act annoyed, or simply irritated, about her husband's interest in finding them a safe way out and she gets really miffed because, if possible, he wants to kill the rampaging fish-man-monster who is killing her loved ones. She looks seriously aggrieved that he is trying to do anything. As for Amy Chang, playing their son's girlfriend - the kindest thing I can say about her performance is that she gives "terrible" it's new poster child.

As for the monster... well I'll be charitable and guess they spent a whole seventeen dollars on the suit and then hired the first performer who said "I know how monsters act, they roar like this: Roar. Roar." It wouldn't be out of place in a super-cheap amateur film from the 1950's. The old Creature From The Black Lagoon looks like a hundred million dollar special effect in comparison. But Cheapy Fish-Man-Monster does roar. A lot. It flaps it's fish-lips and makes noise (okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration - it doesn't have lips; those would have cost an added fifty cents). Some of the bloody FX on the victims are quite good but then others are distractingly poor, like the effects artist was in the restroom and they didn't want to wait so someone's kid brother visiting the set took over. I'm sure the kid meant well, but still.

And how to describe the "dramatic" moment when the mom talks the monster out of attacking by explaining that they think of this place as "Home"; which, apparently, your average fish-man understands perfectly well so long as you talk to him like an adult; don't raise your voice, look slightly peeved, and tell him you know he's just protecting his natural territory (which they have no reason to suspect, and it's not his territory anyway). And I wish I was making that up...but I'm not. When they just get up and walk away I immediately thought that's what I should have done before I started watching this demoralizing catastrophe. And I wish I'd made this whole thing up...but I didn't.

The Most Assassinated Woman in the World (2018)

Dark... In A Good Way

[9/10 · 22 December 2018]

Excellent French film about the Grand Guignol theater in the early part of the 20th Century. Impressive period details, engaging plot and interesting twists. I loved that much of the film took place in the theater itself. Perhaps some of the supporting characters weren't as fully developed as I would have liked (never sure where the "bad" theater manager was coming from) and I always prefer complex three dimensional characters instead of caricatures, but I enjoyed all the other dark shadings given to most. And a rather lovely "dark" ending that skirts close to a movie cliche, twice, before revealing it's something far deeper and more meaningful. For all parties involved. And in response to some of the other reviewers; on my TV the photography was extremely well done! I had no problem seeing what was going on, and, honestly, I worry some folks might need to see an ophthalmologists or optician or maybe they had their fingers too close together as their hands covered their eyes during the creepy and bloody bits.

The Diabolical (2015)

Shooting the Viewer in the Head Would Be a Surprise Too!

[3/10 · 29 October 2018]

I love me my ambitious small movies but don't go there if you haven't the brains to pull it off! This one starts off well: a haunted house tale we're dropped into well into the haunting so there's mystery as the audience tries to play catch-up. But despite some decent make-up (harking to the Silent Hill style) and some creepy scenes (creature crawling out of a dryer is a new one for me) the execution is pretty lackluster and dull and interest will be waning by the time they go for their third act SURPRISE that pretty much shoots their own movie solidly in the foot. You can't just throw a time travel scenario, or evil corporate running everything, in if it then throws what little logic your movie had out the window and makes no sense. Suddenly coincidences pile up, plot holes magically appear the size of a bloated Macy's parade blimp, and people shooting far above their intellect always think "ambiguous" is the same as "good". It's not if no matter how you turn it there's no sense to be found. Think first, film second, dudes! For half the film you were a 5 or 6 and then you had to go believing it when your mommy told you how clever you were. Your mommy lied.

Haunted (IV) (2014)

In The Jeepers Creepers Universe?

[8/10 · 28 October 2018]

All us reviewers should state some qualifier up front so folks know whether to keep reading. So I'll say I think Jeepers Creepers is a modern masterpiece so you'll know where I'm coming from. I also really liked JC2 but what the hell happened to Victor Salva after that? Rosewood Lane was poor and Jeepers 3 sucked so badly it almost pulled my own soul out! This film, it turns out, was made between those two turkeys ( I didn't even know it existed) and it's his 2nd best film. But what got me the most is how many callbacks there are to the Creeper-verse. Intentional or is he just repeating himself? It's an interesting film (with a weak beginning) but once it gets going it takes turn after turn into surprising territory - just like Jeepers Creepers. And then there's the sixties vehicle driven by the leads - I'm not a car nut but its almost a clone of the impala from the earlier film and the passenger even does the same hand movement out the window; the coat and general mien of the Tobin Bell character harks to the Creeper, as does the location; there's a pivotal diner scene; creatures are driven over again and again and jump back up; even some shots and staging is almost identical to JC (spin out the vehicle on the old road shots anyone!). And even though it gets somewhat sloppy toward the end (a lotta strands to tie together) when it hits its mark its really very good (creepy, axe dragging figures scuttling about is a particularly original vision) and it hits more than it misses. A few of the FX are pretty bad but it doesn't outweigh the positives and, all in all, I'll happily watch this again next Halloween season.

Bedeviled (2016)

It's Not the Worst Movie in the World...

[3/10 · 23 October 2018]

I gave this one a chance because the trailer made it look like it had a creepy Nightmare on Elm Street vibe (which turned out to be more of an "It" vibe). Overall the film is meh; a movie made by folks who only know life from other C grade films. Cases in point; the group of high school friends don't talk, or act, like high-schoolers (all the females, including the extras in the brief classroom shots, were cast from the "hot girl" casting pool and non of them look younger than early twenties); with two or three brief exceptions these kids practically live in a bubble - none of them have parents, or siblings, or know anyone else at school except each other since they don't interact with anybody or have outside interests and certainly no jobs (they live in super fancy homes yet none of them even have maids, or gardeners in the absence of parents); they know they're being stalked through their phones by an evil app but still continue to go home to their dark, empty houses and stay connected thru their phones. Oh and isn't it lucky that amongst the group there just so happens to be a studly computer genius who can figure everything out for them - possibly even completing the work of a renowned deceased scientist - and yet the evil computer app who knows everything about them doesn't even deal with that threat. If those kind of unbelievable, unrealistic, and totally synthetic behaviors and situations never bother you then you might enjoy this flick. There's one or two decent little sequences (I like the evil teddy bear) and they obviously spent all their budget on some cool effects instead of the necessary re-writes to make the film anything more than barely tolerable. And they saved money by not hiring good actors also. But it seems like all they simply wanted to do was make a movie just like other movies, regardless if those were good or bad.

Deep in the Darkness (2014)

A Solid B-

[6/10 · 21 October 2018]

That's my opinion: a solid B-. Decent premise, sort of a Jack Ketchum throwback with Wicker Man/Harvest Home overtones (a community tied to the local "legend"). The acting is acceptable to pretty good and I, for one, rather liked the concept of the Isolates (with a dash of Morlock thrown in for good measure) and accepted the premise of this group of creatures living in the woods. Why only a B- then? Because it never rises to being anything better; characters aren't really defined (the husband blandly accepts his wife suddenly acting totally different and suspicious). People do dumb things (not as dumb as in most plot-only horror films) but if creatures rule the night why not leave during the day? Why not get a gun? Or call outside help? And it's not effectively shot - sort of pedestrian - as if the director never saw how much more he could get out of his location or scenes. And the score is over the top and the script too often "on the nose" with characters saying just enough to keep the plot moving but not enough to flesh anything out or feel particularly real. Even the child is only interested in plot: "wheres the dog?" or "I see ghosts" with no one asking for explanations or offering comfort or anything believable. But its serviceable overall. I can't wait for a decent remake.

She Rises (2016)

Seeing This Was My Punishment I Guess

[1/10 · 19 October 2018]

What the hell did I do in a previous life to deserve watching this film in this life? I love low budget, ambitious films, especially horror and sci-fi where you can slip in fresh ideas and complex concepts; but this film wants to be everything, including every other film ever made (judging by the fact that half the script is lines from, or reference to, other much better films. Oh, and Shakespeare). Not doing itself any favors reminding us how good movies can be; cuz we're not watching them, we're suffering through this one. The actors try really hard (and it shows) and I've always been an Angus Macfadyen fan, but this is just like a poorly conceived actor's demo reel. And a REALLY poorly directed wannabe director's reel. No idea where to put the camera, or how to make a poorly designed shot not look like crap, or how to shape an actors efforts. I mean, what the hell was up with the camera half the time??? I've seen student films made by drunk business majors that had more to recommend them than this. Here are talented actors and some wild ambitions to do something different, and they might even have thought they were doing something clever and cutting edge, but next time wait until you can line up some talented filmmakers to help you rise above the tedious level of She Rises.

The Rift: Dark Side of the Moon (2016)

Dark Side of the Dull

[2/10 · 19 October 2018]

Considering that a lot is happening with mysterious spacemen showing up, dead people who won't stay dead, secret agents and (I guess) the apocalypse, this movie is tedious and terrible. I got the impression it wanted to be something like Carpenter's Prince of Darkness but just without the skill or competence. And the whiniest, weakest female "top agent" the world has ever seen. That woman had me driving pencils into my brain. I was hoping for a strong female lead, not this screaming, crying mess. And, without a doubt, the WORLD'S WORST MUSICAL SCORE! Ear splittingly loud and mind-numbingly terrible. And obviously the writers thought that if you're confusing and pointless and make no sense you can fool dummies into thinking your movie is intelligent and clever. But I've seen intelligent and clever and it would be ashamed to be in the same room as this flick. Spare yourself. Put a pencil through your eyes and listen to cacophonous heavy metal music while watching paint dry; you'll have a much better time.

The Thing on the Doorstep (2014)

Painful to Watch

[1/10 · 14 October 2018]

People seem to be praising this film simply because it is truer to the Lovecraft story than usual; but then is someone simply reading the story aloud a better film? If you can't make believable characters, can't think of any other narrative way to tell your story beside constant tedious voice-overs while a guy wanders around a poorly designed set, can't create tension or mood or illicit good performances from actors who are obviously trying then you haven't made a good film. One definition of "amateur" is "Lacking professional skill or expertise" and this is the perfect example of amateur with no budget. Horribly photographed, poorly directed (even the compositions are usually bad) and with some of the worst student level editing and "special effects" I've even seen. They might have followed the plot of Lovecraft but they failed at everything else.

The Loved Ones (2009)

Great Horror More Serious Than Camp

[9/10 · 14 October 2018]

Totally surprised by how awesome this was. I was expecting some campy shallow high school horror film and instead got real thrills, real scares, and REAL CHARACTERS! Can't stress that enough. Awesome performances by actors who had characters written as real people, not effen cardboard cutouts like most slasher films. The only thing that kept me from giving this a ten and declaring it perfect was it is a little thin on any level other than shock-fest. We're treated to a weird family and twisted attachments but it could have been a vehicle to actually SAY something. But even though it didn't make me put on my thinking cap or change my world-view, it was still so much more impressive than I was prepared for!

Apostle (2018)

Brutal Wicker Man

[9/10 · 14 October 2018]

I thought this was a really strong film; brutal and mysterious. I really disliked Dan Stevens in the meh-fest that was Beauty and the Beast but I thought he did a really good job here, his mannerisms, movement and speech all like a distinct character, not like a star putting in an appearance. The supporting actors were all very good and Michael Sheen is always great. But the twisted story with it's hints of Wicker Man (and not the embarrassing remake, but the good one) is what grabs you. I love how understated and believable the fantasy elements were. Excellent film.