Review: Red Letters

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2020
Images from the Internet

 

Red Letters
Directed by Jim Klock
Code 3 Films; Terror Films
86 minutes, 2020
www.terrorfilms.com

Lately, I have been on a few Theists vs. Atheists boards, which are always interesting. This actually fits in well for this release, in which the two lead characters are on either side of this issue.

Retired homicide detective turned PI Jim Knowles (the film’s director, Jim Klock), who helps the police with “dark” murders, and also retired Professor of Theology and Knowles’ friend and reluctant occasional partner Mike Gaston (Mike Capozzi) – no need to explain which is the believer and which is not – are hired by the police to investigate the strange disappearance of a deputy investigating a burglary (at exactly 3 AM on November 1, the day after Halloween, which is, of course, the Catholic-based All Saints Day; personally, I think it would have been cooler to be at 3:33, but that’s just my own musing that has nothing to do with nothing). But this is fiction placed in a particular subgenre of horror, so it "obvious" who, in this story, is "right." That’s just a given. But let’s go on and start the film…

Jim Klock and Mike Capozzi

This story follows a perspective I really like, in that after the Deputy’s disappearance, we mainly follow the two lead characters for a day, so we learn about events as they do. For me, this is a smart way to keep us knowing just what they know, and to work on the case with them, as it were.

Unlike many films, indie or mainstream, this is well written in that the characters are quite human rather than mere stereotypes. For example, the partner of the deputy that disappears discusses his guilt about being afraid of going after the officer. This is a very realistic touch, which softens the character and makes him sympathetic rather than being just a coward. Or is there more? That’s a question that is consistent throughout the film, as it rightfully should be in any police procedural, as well as one in the Satanic subgenre especially (since he is the Prince of Lies, as it were).

So, what is the philosophy of the film: is it pro- or anti-God/Satan? Well, that’s pretty easy to figure out, if you’ve seen The Exorcist and The Omen (I am going to assume that’s a yes). And is it preachy about it? And is there a Right-Wing slant to the film, as Knowles jacket has a “Blues Lives Matter” American flag patch on his jacket? Well, more about all that later.

Meanwhile, did I mention that Gaston has visions when he touches objects? It’s no wonder he’s a believer, and he’s certain Satan is a-foot. Or is it a-hoof? But no one sees and hears as much as a homeless man named Robin (Robin F. Baker), who is a prophet in touch with the Lord that we are introduced to at the start of Act 2, which drowns a bit in dialogue about matters Holy.

The visions help show that, of course, things aren’t always as they appear, and good Christians can be called into question as they show a dark side. But is that out of some long-term sinister belief system or fear? These are all questions to lead the viewer on the journey to the truth within the film’s boundaries. Sometimes beliefs are shown in subtle ways, such as Knowles being a non-believer and the only smoker in the story, showing he doesn’t care about the world by repeatedly littering with the butts, even when there is a garbage can right there (sorry, personal pet smoking peeve).

The first couple of Acts are a bit slow and paced, and could use some editing, though there are a couple of decent jump scares. But as is natural in genre cinema, it isn’t until the third Act that things really start hopping.

The film is pretty well acted, and considering the vast amount of dialog, such as the extended soliloquy of Robin at a diner, it is held up by Baker’s acting chops. The body count is relatively low as is the blood flow, but the tension in the last Act (as opposed to the Bible’s “Acts”) works well to keep up a bit of tension.

And is it preachy? Well, yeah, a bit, but not to the level where I felt like I was being beaten over the head like those ridiculous Left Behind releases. There are lots of Bible quotes and a letter from Paul discussed, and I assume Klock, who also wrote the film, is a believer, because his character (who does not have faith) states at one point, “I don’t believe in the Man upstairs.” Most atheists or agnostics would respond, “I don’t see any proof of a Man upstairs” instead, leaving the burden of proof on the believer. The end title card actually answers the question of preaching, though.

The photography is pretty straightforward most of the time, with one and two person shots, with lots of headshots. But somewhat often, a lovely time lapse or overhead of a beautiful forest can take the viewer by surprise by its beauty, considering it was shot near Atlantic City, NJ (I promise you, this Brooklyn boy will not mock NJ here).

Overall, it’s a decent film that’s nice to look at and a respectable cast that is only hindered by the amount of talking in ratio-to-action. I haven’t seen Klock’s other four films, so I don’t know if the religiosity is a trend or a one-off, but I’d certainly be willing to see more, even as an agnostic non-Christian myself who doesn’t mind a bit of Gods and Devils in his viewing stories. But remember, there are over 3000 gods out there, and this is taking only one of the Christian perspectives, which means all the others are “wrong.” That’s hubris, but with good cinema, I’ll let it stand.

You can find the film exclusively, for now, at the Kings of Horror site on You Tube.