Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2016
Images from the Internet
Consumption (aka Live-In Fear)
Written, directed and edited by Brandon
Scullion
Iodine Sky
Productions / Monsterworks66 /
Wild Eye
Releasing / MVD Visual
80
minutes, 2014 / 2016
Give a group of young people a cabin
in the woods in the mountains with an evil spirit that has a cult of followers,
and you just know fun is going to be abounded. Well, it should be for the
audience, anyway. In his first feature directorial, originally released a couple
of years ago as Live-In Evil, Brandon
Scullion mixes and matches a bunch of genre stereotypes and brings us a story
that is meandering and somewhat shallow in plot.
Right from the start, we meet two
Californian couples heading up to a cabin in Utah that was once owned by one of
their families (in real life, Scullion’s grandmother). In the car ride, we get
the “ghost story” background that sets up the premise, and that’s good; get it out of the
way to make room for the action to come.
But as happens too often, the two
guys come across as douchebags. Seth (David Lautman, with dark circles around his eyes
from the first shot) is acting all “leave me alone!” and creepy, and the other,
Eric (Chris Dorman) is off the wagon and verbally abusive. This is a common a
theme in “couples go to wherever…couples get dead” films. The two women have
their own baggage, including a history of cutting, but don’t act like privileged
macho morons, but rather like they’ve been sedated. So far, 20 minutes in, the pace
of the film is pissing me off.
I’ve often said that if you take enough
classic tropes and put them together, you can get an original story. This film
abounds with them, and one can almost make it a drinking game finding the
connections. Well, the box blurb mentions The
Shining and Evil Dead, and that’s
somewhat accurate, but each of them is changed a bit around; again, a wise
move. For example, the “Cabin in the Woods” is actually a huge complex of
townhouse condos linked together, which seem to be mostly deserted (though in
great shape, and quite lovely, too, with lots of pine wood). The old weirdo
warning them to leave is there, but he’s also the Black caretaker (Miles
Cranford, who you may recognize from his many character roles), as at the
Overlook Hotel.
We also meet Ma and Pa White (veteran
actors Geoffrey Gould and Nancy Wolfe, the latter of whose claim to fame – and
rightfully so – is playing Susan Atkins in the 1970’s Helter Skelter). They come across as overly creepy, and seem to be
just about the only tenants around, so when a mysterious masked cult is
revealed (as seen in the trailer), putting the pieces together on who they are is not
difficult.
My biggest problem with the film is
that while each of the four main characters interact with each other, they all
seem to be in a world of their own, with their own problems, most of which are
not addressed, such as why the cutting, or why one took such a drastic action
that happened before the film’s start (and has a direct effect on the present).
While I came to like the women in the film somewhat, and not so much the men as
I mentioned earlier, I never understood the motivations of their actions, or
what the attractions between them are/were.
Let me add the following at this
point: the cast is strong. Every actor is a gem, from the foremost to the
secondary. Especially noteworthy are redheaded Arielle Branchfeld and Sarah
Greyson (who has a kind of Selma Blair vibe), though I would add that the two
guys perform better than their roles, even given that, most of the time, again,
they all seem sedated. I supposed the direction was given that they were in shock,
but it’s too broad to be just that.
Also, some the film looks decent.
It’s well shot (by Matthew Espenshade, who deserves a nod) and what few gore effects
there are look well done (all appliance, not digital), though most are shown after the fact. The color saturation,
like the roles, is kind of drab; perhaps this was on purpose to symbolize the
lack of clarity of the story, or the monotone of much of the characters?
Other than a heavy reliance on
“hollow eyes,” (or raccoon eyes, if you will), the make-up is actually
effective. For me, the weakest spot is the writing / storyline. It’s a bit too
chaotic and possibly ambitious for its framework and budget, and yet tells so
very little of what is occurring, or why. The pace could use a little picking
up as well, and please, some more people for whom we can have some emotional
attachment. Let me put it this way: Seth’s character is roaming around at
night, digging and whatnot in a scene that is supposed to be fraught, and it’s
obviously pretty damn cold, and all I could think was, “Where are his gloves?”
If something like that is catching my attention during that particular action, then
that tells me something.
The extras are an 11-minute passable
Making Of featurette that has some good photos but not much context, and a
decent solo director’s commentary that I mostly enjoyed, so thanks for that.
After writing the above, I looked at
some of the other reviews of this film, and some of them are quite praiseful, while
others have lambasted it. For a first feature, yeah, it’s okay, but I also
believe it has a way to go to achieve its goal. I’m hoping the experience of
making this film, Scullion will keep going and make more, and I’m hoping they
will improve more over time. But please, invest in a story editor.
No comments:
Post a Comment