Showing posts with label demon possession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demon possession. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2022

Reviews: 5 Various Exorcism Themed Films: Accidental Exorcist; The Good Exorcist; High School Exorcist; Nurse Exorcist; A Zombie Exorcism

Reviews: 5 Various Exorcism Themed Films

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2022
Images from the Internet

When looking over films that use the word “Exorcism” or “Exorcist” in the title, it is usually, pun intended, dead serious. When dealing with ghosts, classic humanoid creatures (Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula, etc.) there is sometimes a level of humor, but less so in possession films. Even with the grandfather of all possession films, The Exorcist (1973), it tends to be Catholic Priests vs. either Demons or the Devil itself. Yet, they can range from pretty mild and weird, like Shark Exorcist (2014) to gory and intense, such as The Song of Solomon (2014).This is not to say it cannot be occasionally silly. Please note, in all honesty, I enter this religious context as an atheist who has never been a Christian, thank god.

These films below are not ranked, but are listed alphabetically, all from TubiTV. Note that my snark is truly meant to be fun and rib-poking with a touch of stream of consciousness. I had just the right low-budget expectation for these films, so I was not blindsided by anticipating a theatrical extravaganza experience. After all, when it comes to the cheese level, there are times when ya want melted brie on toast, and at others, Cheez-Whiz on animal crackers. I enjoyed these films for precisely what they are. All of these releases are recent, since the millennium. Links to the coming attractions for all of them are at the bottom of each review.

 

Accidental Exorcist
Directed by Daniel Falicki
Sector 5 Films; Gravitas Ventures
105 minutes, 2016
Wow, it’s been quite a while since I reviewed a film by either the director Falicki, or his associated company, Sector 5 Films. The owner of S5 is a Trumper, and when he found out I was vehemently not, as I am a proud liberal, the chain of films to review stopped coming (note that my reviews, positive or negative, were unaffected by our differing political views). Anyway, Falicki’s flicks, such as Shadow World: The Haunting of Misti Delaney (2014), 3:33 AM (2014), and Awaken theDevil (2014), were all enjoyable. So, I am looking forward to seeing this one. In this story, Richard Vanuk (the director, Falicki), is the titular exorcist. He is unbathed, profane, seemingly non-religious, and a drunkard, but he has the ability to exorcise by doing a Resurrection (1980) by drawing the demon out of the victim and into himself, which is hard on his body. He also suffers from painful stigmata, a side-effect of the job. A mysterious person or organization keeps sending him to numerous such tasks in Grand Rapids, Michigan, but he’s living a destitute life, eating SPAM out of the can (the amount of salt he ingests would build a Lot’s wife) and being threatened by the landlord’s racist, homophobic and not-too-smart son (David Higbee) for not being able to pay rent. No wonder he drinks, right? He’s in rough shape, and Falicki plays him incredibly well for a low budget release. It’s pretty intense throughout, but there is also a certain level of dark humor, though I would hardly call this a comedy; for example, while in the middle of an existential alcoholic withdrawal, he’s wearing a D.A.R.E. tee. There is also a plethora of film references, as Vanuk is a film buff, which is also fun for the viewer. An interesting aspect to this is that while Vanuk is not affiliated to any form of orthodoxy, some of his clients are, including a reverend and a Catholic fanatic. No one is safe, as we see him handle a number of difficult cases, each one weirder than the next. But that is definitely part of the enjoyment. There are two things to remember about this film, if it’s a trigger to you: one is that there is a lot of drinking, and there is an abundance of puking by just about everybody. So, yeah, the man who fights demons definitely has a few of his own, both the psychological kind but including the ones who hang around his tiny, cluttered and smelly apartment. And what is the effect of having all these demons processing through his body, both the psychological and the physical? The effects look solid and quite bodily greasy, and as an overall film, well, I chalk this up to another Falicki success.
Trailer is HERE 

 

The Good Exorcist
Directed by Josh Stifter
Rebel Without a Crew; Flush Studios
86 minutes, 2018
www.joshstifter.com/
Austin, Texas, is one of the few sane places in the state that remain, and the Star Hill Ranch, where this was filmed, is there. This is one of the out-and-out comedies that is, rather than merely silly like, say, the later Scary Movie franchise, but it’s both goofy and smart at the same time. For example, the first priest we meet is Father Trejo (Mark Hansen), certainly named after Danny; also, for older folks, there is a caller to an Alex Jones clone conspiracy-based radio talk show named Doodles Weber, whose name sounds a lot like comedian Doodles Weaver (d. 1983). Our main, titular character is Father Gil (Daniel Degnan, who has a co-writing credit, for which I am going to guess is for abundant ad libs; he also appeared in a few of Stifter’s films around this period). We meet Father Gil performing an exorcism while dancing and listening to death metal on a cassette Walkman. He also looks a bit like a Hassidic rabbi, with the beard and wide-brimmed hat. Like the lead of Accidental Exorcist (reviewed above), Father Gil is profane, devil-may-care (pun intended), and a drinker, but a major difference is that Gil is confident and a bit smug. This is expressed in a video (yes, VHS) of himself explaining his services and possible side effects to his clients. The client at hand is at the Willows’ household, filled with ”good Christians” mom (Ali Meier), dad (John Baran), and weird, dumb-as-dirt, adult albeit childish son with a ‘70s-style porn mustache, Stanley (Avery Merrifield, who steals many of his scenes). Also at the ranch is cynical hired helper Maria (Brittaney Ortiz), who wears a huge eyepatch a la Christina Lindberg in Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1973). The demon possessing the ranch (and the occasional person) is the powerful Abaddon, a tentacled creature that has already murdered. While the comedy is somewhat consistent, it does turn serious once the demon hits the fan (actually, that’s one object that it doesn’t possess at any point) and the exorcism begins, but nothing dire. There is some ridiculous puppet monsters (budget, but also works for the story) and some cool animation, as well as a mix of CGI and practical effects, which are easy to differentiate. There are lots of film references both blatant and subtle, such as someone often with a chainsaw (get it? Texas?), and that is part of its charm, perhaps a potential drinking game. This was a really enjoyable, cheesy and breezy release, and it made me smile. Because the story is over the top, so is the acting to keep up the consistency. Because of the dichotomy of the similarities between this exorcist and the one in Accidental Exorcist and the complete opposite of tone, I would recommend seeing them as a double feature.
Trailer is HERE 

 

High School Exorcism (aka High School Possession)
Directed by Peter Sullivan
Hybrid; Production Media Group; Lifetime Television; Tesera Entertainment
88 minutes, 2014
To be honest, I’m going into this not really expecting much, (a) because of the title, and (b) the connection with Lifetime Television. But we live in hyper-religious White Christian desperation times (they are afraid of losing their hold, so they have become more harassing). Even before it starts, I imagine this as “Riverdale” (2017-present as of this writing) meets Saved! (2004), with a possible touch of The Craft (1996). I am wondering if there is actually anything supernatural in it, or if it will end up being a Christian fear film, especially since the director has a history of directing Christmas-themed television films (one of the reasons I stop watching TV for all of December). Let’s dive in. The titular exorcism here involves Chloe (Jennifer Stone), who is usually cheerful, but is now depressed, angry, and acting out due to her parents’ (including Ione Skye, who was once a teen acting golden girl herself in the early 1990s; at this age, it’s amazing how much she resembles her dad, singer Donovan) divorce…and the fact that she’s a teenager, perhaps? But the protagonist is actually Chloe’s friend, Lauren (Janel Parrish, whose mom is played by Kelly Hu), who is a reporter for the school newspaper. She has an assignment to check out a religious group called The Chosen (not too subtle) at her local church, which includes her schoolmate and religious fanatic/bully, Olivia (Shanley Caswell), where she accidentally sees an exorcism in progress, led by Reverend Young (William McNamara). This whole part is steeped in Christian mythology, from The Chosen’s meeting to the rite. When Chloe drunkenly sleeps with Olivia’s douche of a boyfriend at a party, she becomes the target of Olivia’s ire (you know, blame the woman, not the man; yes, this was written by Hanz Wasserburger, a male who writes TV Christmas fare). So, the $30,000 question is: is Chloe, who is hearing voices and staring at the wall possessed, or is she a teenager with issues? The film hints at one, but leaves it open for the viewer to mull for a while. The acting is pure television movie style, with just a hint of over- or under-emoting, like everyone is emotionally doing that “wah” at the end of sentences” (e.g., “I know-wah”), without actually doing it, if that makes any sense at all; Skye, however, comes out the most natural actor in the film. This is television/cinema high school, so everyone is gorgeous with perfect and very white teeth (realistic looking people need not apply). The film sends the message that is you are struggling and having mental issues (possibly schizophrenia?), surely it must be demonic and only the Church can help. When I was a teen, I was into things horrific (still am), had fake skulls in my bedroom and had low self-esteem. Was I possessed, or filled with hormones? Did you know in Ontario, 8th grade teachers are the highest paid instructors because they have to deal with teenage hormones? As the third act gets underway, the overhanded Christian dogma really starts to become cloying and heavy-handed, with an outright attack on atheists (as religious films are wont to do) in a classroom discussion on Hemingway. I fought the urge to skip ahead or turn on a podcast by Austin, TX’s brilliant “Atheist Experience” to cleanse my palate. Other, non-story but filmmaking questions I have include the following: why does Lauren go into the school newspaper office on a Saturday to write an article when she most likely has a computer at home? And why does Skye still wear her wedding ring if she’s divorced (note that in real life, she’s married to musician Ben Lee)? Of course, even with a bathing scene, there is no nudity (other than an upper back) and not even a “damn,” never mind stronger language. There is some violence, but mostly punches thrown sans blood (though some makes an “after” cutting appearance). The film is more about the reindoctrinating of Lauren, finding “Matthew, John, Luke, and Paul” than the exorcism, and that annoys me. One really doesn’t need to be overly religious to tell a good possession story, such as, once again, The Exorcist (1973). Finally at the end times of the film (see what I did there?), we finally get the exorcism (hey, it’s in the trailer), led by Olivia, who is verging on a feeling of jealousy and religious self-righteousness. Will this end well? Not gonna say. But I will add, if I never hear “The Lord’s Prayer” again, I won’t miss it. Overall, this really isn’t a good film as far as a true genre connoisseur fare, but as this is a television film, it would fit on the Hallmark Channel with no problem. While not as ridiculous as another Christian exorcism film I once saw called The Enemy (1974), I still wanted to take a shower after because of the weight of the religiosity. This could easily have been called God’s Not Dead, Part 666.
Trailer is HERE 

 

Nurse Exorcist (aka The Exorcist Nurse)
Directed by Masafumi Yamada
Wild Eye Releasing; Chance In; Kijuu
94 minutes, 2018
www.wildeyereleasing.com
Japanese genre films often deal with ghosts, demons and evil beings, but I cannot recall a previous exorcism release from that country. So, when I saw this, I got a bit excited. The original was obviously in Japanese, but the TubiTV version is dubbed into very precise English, if your caption-aphobic. Oddly, there is a quirk in the translation in that characters often repeat what they say twice; I do not believe this is purposeful. First thing you may notice is that the color filtering of the film is varied. Much of it is quite muted with a nearly sepia tone, some is in black and white, and others in full color. Yukiko Norita is not feeling well. Every time her husband, Kaigo, touches her, she bruises, and during a brain scan, a dark shadow hovers around her. She is admitted to the hospital on the same day as new, mysterious nurse, Misaki Matsumoto (Haruka Monokawa). The other young nurse, Rie Asama (Nanami Yamada) tries to befriend the quiet Matsumoto; note that these are the only two cast members listed in IMDB, and the end credits just list the actors’ names without their roles so I’m not sure who played who (whom?). You just know their paths are going to overlap. There is also a crusty older Head Nurse (whomever does her dubbing sounds really stilted and odd) who is in charge that does not suffer fools. As with most possession films, real or not (within the story), many times the question is first posed whether it is psychological or sinister. The black kind of foreshadows that (it’s in the first few minutes and also in the trailer, below), but the film still plays with that notion. Yukiko is convinced that everyone is telling her to divorce her apparently loyal husband, and she is freakin’ out in the hospital. As usual, Asians have a different take on the mostly American film tradition and make it their own by mixing Japanese mythology into it. So, while it’s not necessarily a demon possessing someone and the exorcist is there to – er – exorcise it, it’s a different, more personal take that will sound familiar to those fans of Asian horror cinema that I will not divulge because it was cool when it came to light. This is definitely the equivalent of a low-budget B-movie, and there are certainly talky parts, but it was different and yet familiar enough to keep me watching.
Trailer is HERE 

 

A Zombie Exorcism (aka Opstandelsen)
Directed by Casper Haugeguaard
Jawbreaker Productions; Wild Eye Releasing
49 minutes, 2010
www.wildeyereleasing.com
This Danish release is brief and hopefully not sweet. In many circles, this would be considered a short film (i.e., under one hour). What I found intriguing is the possibility of the cross of two genres, evident in the title. When it comes time for my “zombie collection” releases, this could have appeared then, as well (it was a choice between this and 2017’s Amityville Exorcism as a crossover title). This is in Danish (the translation of the original title is “The Resurrection”) with large, clear captioning. We enter the story at a funeral of Christian (of course) in a church. I am not sure of the denomination, but it’s orthodox enough that the men sit on one side (the “right side” of course since Christianity is a pro-male religion), and the women on the other. The priest, Father Lucius (Hans Maalǿe) drones on about, of course, the Resurrection (as funerals tend to do in Christian orthodoxy) and the coming of Judgment Day (obey, or else, is the theme). While the church has quite a few people, the focus is on one family, headed by a very strict and controlling mother, Ruth (Roxanne Tirkov). One of the sons, Simon (Peter Althoff) however, isn’t into it and is snorting a white powder off whatever the denomination’s Bible (we see a large 666 on the page, of course). It is implied that the sin of this action brings the church graveyard to zombie post-life (reminiscent of 1985’s The Return of the Living Dead) to attack the congregation. Just in case you are curious, these are fast zombies. There is no explanation for the recently re-risen, but I am going to assume from the title that it has to do with demonic influences. Or maybe it is brought upon by the using of the Bible as a coke spoon, or in the other direction, the uptightness of the priest. When the killing starts, it’s definitely bloody with body parts a-flinging. Simon and three others manage to get into the basement of the church through a trap door; Simon’s brother Johannes (Jonas Bjǿrn-Andersen) takes control (masculinist) of the situation, while sister Esther (cute Marie Fromhé Vanglund) takes care of a sister who is wounded/bitten. Well, we all know where that is going. An interesting aspect of this film is before the zombies arrive, the image is muted, nearly colorless. After they attack, the image is clearer, brighter, and better to show off all the blood. The main crux of the story is how they fight their way out of the basement. For a low budget film, it is extremely graphic with gore and blood, with practical effects, and is stunning to watch. The zombies look amazing, rather than ones that look like they have putty on their face. If you hate captions, just watch it with the sound off and enjoy the scenery. Other than Simon fighting off the zombies with a metal cross, I’m not sure where the exorcism in the title fits in, but still, this was quite enjoyable. The original Danish title makes more sense, this is still a hoot and a half, and perhaps I should have included it in a future zombie collection rather than an exorcism one. Still not sorry, though, and I recommend this film.
Trailer is HERE 

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Review: The Forsaken


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

This is the second of a three-part review series of the films of Yolanda Torres. They will be in chronological order, over three days. These films were also written by Joan Alvarez.


The Forsaken
Directed by Yolanda Torres
aFilm International Film Workshop; Easy Stiges
86 minutes, 2015 / 2020
www.easystiges.com

Tales of kidnapping for ransom gone awry are certainly not new. Even back in 1907, short story maven O. Henry wrote an iconic one with a comic bent called “The Ransom of Red Chief,” for example.

Of course, this account takes itself quite a bit more seriously, if not with a profound sinister and possible supernatural tone. Five British and Spanish kidnappers for hire, with Tarantino-eque names like Mr. Blake, Mr. Quartermass, Mrs. Peel (who wears tight leather pants; what, no Mr. Steed?) and Number Two (Alberto Esparza), have grabbed schoolgirl Sara (Claudia Trujillo playing younger than her years, but looks well in the part) under the orders of an unknown and unseen contractor, aka Number One. The goal is to extract a tidy sum from Sara’s well-to-do businessman father.

Alberto Esparza and Claudia Trujillo
The place they take Sara is a beautiful old stone house (shot at Casa Felix, Olivella, near Barcelona) in the middle of flippin’ nowhere, where she is tied up. Except for Mrs. Peel (Sarah Tyler Shaw), no one really takes any time to try to connect to the rightfully scared bound and blindfolded girl, which is understandable considering the circumstances.

But, being a horror film, if you can’t tell by the title, there is more afoot than meets the eye in the creaky abode (man, I really love what we see of this house!). We get creaky sounds from the locked basement, enough creepy atmosphere to figurately blow the doors off with, and five criminals who do not trust the others in their own group.

In the first half, at least, there seems to be a heavy reliance on The Haunting (1963) where you don’t actually see anything other than objects hinting at evil, such as a key twisting in a lock over some highly dissonant music to set the appropriate mood. That and the fact the people in the house cannot physically bring themselves to leave (a nice way to keep them around without damaging the house).

Sarah Tyler Shaw
More meat’n’taters than Torres’ previous release from the year before, The Afterglow (2014), but this still keeps up the artistic level, applied with more as an emphasis than a hindrance. There is a strong use of shadows (showing off, among other things, Shaw’s amazing cheekbones), dark filters, and angles that are just skewed enough to be off-putting, often without being conscious. Plus, there is that deep, mysterious bass sound that occurs to jangle the viewer’s nerves.

Without trying to give away too much, there is definitely an Evil Dead (1981) vibe going on here, with a malevolent force emanating from – well, it’s pretty apparent right off – that possesses the kidnapping krew one by one, in some way or another, often through the visual as a theme (eyes, mirrors, etc.). Instead of a Necronomicon, there is a box of notes written in diary form. A cool aspect is that the next victim’s name appears in blood somewhere, but you don’t know who that is because they are all using pseudonyms. That is another great touch.

While filmed in Spain, it is an English-spoken film (with Spanish subtitles). For me, the only drawback was the accents, which are quite strong in some of the players, from both the British and Spanish actors. Speaking of which, I wonder about Sara’s eye make-up: while raccoon-eyed style, it does not seem to smear, even though she has been crying profusely and is blindfolded. Ah, the magic of movies!

The gore, however, is infrequent and all the more shocking because of it. Sometimes gore can enhance a mood, but here it’s the moments of it that tie the tone to the story.

The acting is all amazing, and the characters are nicely fleshed out in terms of personality even without much of a backstory, considering they are anonymous even to each other. That being said, by far the women have the strongest fortitude.

As possession films go, this one is actually quite good, with a creepy, crawly overall mood, in part thanks to the lighting of the stone interior, the soundtrack, and bass that rumbles through numerous scenes and the off-set camera that I discussed earlier. Any one of those things could work, but Torres manages to mash them together into a terse and tense piece of genre cinema that is a beauty to watch.

The Forsaken trailer HERE.



Friday, November 15, 2019

Review: The Dark Side of the Moon


Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2019
Images from the Internet


The Dark Side of the Moon
Directed by DJ Webster
Wildstreet Pictures / Unearthed Films / MVD Entertainment
87 minutes, 1990 / 2019

There was a period of time where science fiction and horror crossed genres, and it was great. The Alien franchise, Galaxy of Terror (1981), and so many others fed off the success of previous films, and once the majors found the hits, the smaller studios and indies grabbed their boards and rode the dollar waves. If this sounds cynical, well, I mean it that way only about ten percent. I actually like some of the smaller films as much as the ones budgeted at a gazillion dollars.

That being said, here is this release. If Star Wars (1977) was A-list and Battle Beyond the Stars (1980) was B-level, then this is very competent C-cinema. Then add to it the ilk of demonic possession like The Exorcist (1973) and the questioning of identity such as John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), and you’re a bit closer to this mash-up.

Will Bledsoe
Taking place in the far off space travel future of 2022 (wait…what?!), a cargo ship meets up with The 18th Discovery space shuttle, another NASA (non-commercial) craft from decades before, which had splashed down and crashed, disappearing into the Bermuda Triangle (also known as the Devil’s Triangle). And like so many other films, there is something aboard this abnormality that is not only evil, it’s Satanic. That’s right, not a monster, this is a possessive spirit that migrates from body to body, capturing the person’s soul along the way if they are a non-believer in the Christian god.

It’s a bit over the top (paraphrase: “The second you questioned the existence of God, you were mine!”), our good shipping crew was in peril, as the song says. But let’s backtrack to that a bit. The humans in question is a sextet of a repair crew sent to fix an orbital nuclear weapon (Space Force?!) but their spaceship malfunctions and ends up heading towards the surface of the dark side of the moon. That’s when they run into the errant shuttle and the fun begins. Well, for us viewers, natch, not for them. Also, in the “crew” is the robot system, based on a mixture of HAL and possibly the cyborg “Ash” character in Alien (1979). But in this case, the computer is shaped like a sexy female named Lesli (British actress Camilla More), who sits in a chair the entire time and wears a tight leather top that shows off some deep cleavage. Siri never looked this good.

Camilla More
The two “heroes” of the film are the Commander, Giles (Will Bledsoe), and the nice, Jewish [implied] doctor, Dreyfuss (Alan Blumenfeld). Giles is the strong-jawed type who will put himself in peril for others, and Dreyfuss is more of the laid-back… well, let’s just say he’s somewhere between schmuck and mensch, mostly to the former. Most of his dialog in the first half is “I don’t know.” So, it’s pretty obvious as some point he’s going to rise to the occasion when the need arrives in the third act. Oy. Another two actors that had other fame are Robert Sampson, who played the Dean/Megan’s dad in Re-Animator (1985), and Joe Turkel, instantly recognizable as bartender Lloyd in The Shining (1980).

Like in Alien (a touchstone in most of these kinds of films), the crew gets picked off one by one, but that’s obvious. And like The Thing (ditto), no one knows who has the evil within, so anyone who is alone at any particular time is suspect and paranoia = suspense for the viewer. All the check marks are there, and the first-time feature director (known for making music videos, such as Til Tuesday’s iconic “Voices Carry” and religious nut Amy Grant’s “Baby Baby”) uses it well, infusing darkness and shadow to keep you off kilter).

Alan Blumenfeld
The sets look great, considering this wasn’t a huge budget megafilm. Some of the explosion effects are kind of cheesy, but so were the ones in the original Battlestar Galactica (1978). Other than that, it’s what you could imagine a corporate repair ship might look like (i.e., one the administration would not care about – other than budgetary – because it’s a job they would never do), with dingy walls and dark corridors (again, see the Nostromo in Alien).

What is adorable, for lack of a better word, is the technology presented. This was filmed pre-Internet, and the computers used are obviously cathode-backed. Even the keyboards look antiquated, and the onscreen images are 8-bit at best (think first generation Tetris). Of course, there was no way a minor budget film could experiment much visually considering CGI was in its extreme infancy and would be highly cost inefficient.

Joe Turkel
The physical effects are practical, especially the bloody ones – and there are a few of them – other than those pesky explosions. Mostly we see a lot of snake-eyes, going back to the biblical serpent in the garden is one way to look at it.

Considering the director’s past with Amy Grant, I am assuming that there is a religious message here, to believe in the Christian god in order to (try and) defeat Satan. Or perhaps he’s arguing against that by Giles’ attitude. Honestly, I’m not sure.

So, let’s get to the extras, most of them are Q&A interviews led by Jay Kay, and then I will get back to discussing the film. First up is Alan Blumenfeld (40 min.). It’s a bit long, but mostly interesting as the discussion is centered around Alan’s career in general, and this film in particular. It’s not very deep, but enjoyable. The problem is with the sound, as the volume of Jay Kay’s mic keeps dipping; it’s Alan’s answers that are more central, so that’s okay albeit a bit annoying. Next up is FX artist R. Christopher Biggs (35 min.), who has done so much in genre films that I’m just gonna recommend looking him up on IMDB for his career list. Most of what he talks about his how rough the shoot was for the SFX crew, which kept my attention, but it was also cool hearing him talk about his work on other films such as the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Then there is the interview with stuntman Chuck Borden (21 min.), who only worked on the film for one day; honestly, this one was a bit dry, but I muddled through.

Wendy MacDonals
For the commentary we get producer Paul White and Unearthed Films’ head the Stephen Biro. Again, Biro is the Q in the Q&A, though he does add a bunch of information as well. It’s not the most exciting commentary track but filled with good bits anyway.

The last digital extras are the Budget Breakdown (1 min.), which I’ve never seen on a extras list before that I can remember, and a Stills Gallery (mostly screen shots and posters; 2 min), and there’s a very nice and thick color booklet in the case cover filled with facts and pictures.

Two points of interest before I bust outta here: first, this is the first screenplay for the writing team of Carey W. Hayes and Chad Hayes, who would eventually find fame with the likes of The Conjuring (2013). The other is that this film is very similar in storyline to Event Horizon (1996), and I wonder about the connection.

As sci-fi horror goes, this is a really good example of what was being created on a regular basis back in those days of following the audience, and somehow as hokey as this sometimes is (Satan! In Space!), it manages to work.



Sunday, April 15, 2018

Review: The Unwilling

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2018
Images from the Internet


The Unwilling
Directed by Jonathan Heap
Vision Films / Northern Prod / Rough Diamond Prod /
Bertone Visuals Prod / Corrales Digital /
84 minutes, 2016 / 2018
theunwilling.com/

When I see a film that has played many festivals and numerous and very different posters, I get a mixture of excited and cynically suspicious. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed. The director, Jonathan Heap, was nominated for an Oscar in 1991 for a short called 12:01 PM. Since the millennium, most of his work has been shorts and a television series. I willingly enter the bargain of watching this with hope, however, considering the cast and the look of the stills from it, but I’m jumping ahead.

The premise is simple: an ugly and evil box gives you want you want, and then takes over your body and either kills others or gets the body killed through its actions. For lack of a better term, I’ll call this being a demon, though it’s never really quite specific on its origins, and even complains when someone tries to name it.

We learn the box has been doing this for quite a while as we meet an extended family, based on the children of the previous “owner,” veteran badass Lance Henricksen, who in an extended cameo still manages to outshine most. After the box had come into his life when the now adults were mere kids, he had changed and became a cruel tormentor to his children, leading the main and locus character, David (co-writer with the director, David Lipper) to become housebound due to severe OCD (think of Monk with agoraphobia and without the humor).
                                                                                                                                
Lance Henricksen
Also joining him at his home after the death of his dear old evil dad, to hear the reading of the will, are his similarly abused and hyper-vain sister Michelle (Dina Meyer, who gets to show off some impressive yoga moves), her brutish ex-husband Rich (Robert Rusler) and his current fiancée Cheryl (the lovely Bree Williamson, who I remember from the underrated television show, “Haven”), and cousins Kelly (Austin Highsmith), who is a lawyer and enabler to her junkie brother, Darren (Jake Thomas).

Not a huge cast, but just enough for a decent body count. But I’m jumping ahead of myself again here. The box itself looks pretty cool, sort of like coal with a Cthulhu-similar raised octopus design on it. There’s no denying that it’s bound to remind one of the Book from Evil Dead. Fact of the matter is that there is a lot here that is reminiscent of other films, which in itself I don’t really find to be a bad thing most of the time. It’s like a game of “Oh, I know that one! Take a drink!”

Dina Meyer
The film has moments of slow pacing here and there, but mostly it’s a building story. That being said, it can definitely use some editing and excising, such as how many times do we need to see the water coming from Meyer’s shower head straight on? It’s almost like you’re stuck a bit in David’s need to (rinse and) repeat. Luckily, this doesn’t happen often enough to give up on the story, which mostly works pretty well, in part thanks to its seasoned cast (meant as experience, not age).

Many of the characters are either not likeable or a bit two-dimensional, though David’s seems to be the most thought through (well, the actor playing him did co-write it, remember); however, he is also the center of the story, so that makes sense. We don’t get to learn too much about the others; well, more than occupations and allegiances. There’s very little backstory other than bad dad.

My big question, though, is the title. To me, it sounds kind of contradictory. Okay, here is what I mean by that: the whole premise is based on all the characters volunteering to do something with the box that I won’t give away, and then the box giving each what they want in order to…well, you know (i.e., see the film for yourself). They make choices about what they want, and follow through with the devil’s deal (or demon’s; still not sure). That sounds more like willing than unwilling. Is there something I missed? It’s a similar theme to the Leprechaun franchise where he grants wishes that brings along demise in it, or even as far back as Goethe’s Faust. The working title of the film was The Gathering, and while The Unwilling definitely sounds more chilling, the other seems more accurate. Yeah, I know this is a bit nit-picky; do with it what you will.

Bree Williamson
The SFX in the film are occasionally practical appliances (the blood consistency and color is really good, by the way), but there is also a lot of digital hoo-haa, such as swirling smoke, mirror tricks (reminiscent of Carpenter’s 1987 Prince of Darkness) and a visual “ripple” that leads a character to the box to get what he needs/wants. Other than one cheesy effect outside the house, they all look decent, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s optical.

The press release for the film quite proudly states (and rightfully so), that the crew includes the aforementioned Oscar-nominated director, “Oscar-… and Emmy-winning Cinematographer David Stump,” and multiple award-winning writer Philip Morton (second director and co-producer on this film). With all this heavy power, it’s not surprising that the film looks as good as it does. There is no one thing that is a standout to make me say “Wow,” but it’s definitely a good film, though somewhat washed out of color (I’m sure purposefully). Do I think it’s deserving of such praise? Well, it’s been shown at two dozen festivals around the world, so you there is something there worth noting.

Austin Highsmith
Other than editing, my only real note and quibble is that I think it didn’t go far enough. Except for a nice surprise at the end with an equally enjoyable practical effect (well, it looks like it is an appliance, so I’m assuming…), there is hardly any blood (even with the one person stabbed in a strategic place), the sensuality is minimal other than an affected nurse (Levy Tran, who is on the poster and most of her appearance in the film is in the trailer) and a seduction that changes tone, there is no nudity even with the obligatory shower scene (perhaps the Director’s Cut in a decade or two?), and a low level of actual scares. The pace and angst definitely increases over the course of the film, but it tends to get more shrill than thrill.

Jake Thomas
And yet… I still had a bit of fun watching it. Yeah, I’m critical, but I hope I am not harsh. Even with a seasoned director, actors and crew, there’s the next level and I mean these comments as “notes” and “critique” more than just “opinion” (i.e., where the problem are, rather than “good/bad”).

For example, the acting level is fine, with a bit over- and underacting on occasion. As I said, the cast are seasoned pros and have quite a catalog behind just about all of them, from both film and television, and it shows. The strongest weakness (an oxymoron!) in the writing comes, I believe, from this being the first screenplay for Lipper, and director Heap hasn’t had a writing credit since the early 1990s. But I hope they both continue to stretch their writing wings because there is promise here, and I think by a couple of more films they can be a force. I look forward to that.


Friday, October 2, 2015

Review: The Changing of Ben Moore

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2015
Images from the Internet

The Changing of Ben Moore
Written and directed by Jason Mills
Sector 5 Films / Chemical Burn Entertainment /
Reality Entertainment / Gravitas Ventures / Mills Pictures

World Wide Multi Media
85 minutes, 2015
www.chemicalburn.org
www.reality-entertainment.com
www.Sector5films.net

Recently, I had the opportunity to review director Jason Mills’ other full lengther called They Came from the Attic (2009; aka Above Us Lives Evil). Similarly, this new one takes place in Delta, an area south of Vancouver. As I write this, I’m just across the bay on the Saanich Peninsula, British Columbia, but I digress…

Using the time-worn found footage sub-subgenre, we are introduced to a group of mid-20-year-olds who don’t really seem to have much employment or income, though one works overnight hours every other day so perhaps he’s employed at a Mac’s or something; for those who don’t know, Mac’s is similar to 7-Eleven in Canada.  There are three-and-a-half main characters, so working my way up: the obnoxious smart ass who helps out on camera duty occasionally named John (Bruce Novakowski); Derick (Corey Beaulieu) is the foul mouthed but caring best friend whose aunt adopted Ben, and has come up with the whole idea of the filming; the girlfriend is Sara (Shannon Ostrom aka Shannen Melissa), and; the focus of the film, the titular Ben (Umberto Celisano), who generally comes across as a caring, congenial guy who is befuddled about what is happening to him. Everyone else in the cast who parties with them is surprisingly not necessarily fodder for once. But more on that later.

The reason for the filming is to create a record of the strange goings on of Ben, who was adopted after the death of his parents, and now at 24 years of age, lives in what was the house of his adopted aunt, Derik’s mom. Perhaps an insurance claim left Ben enough money to be able not to have to have a real job? Part of the problem of (not with) this story is that we know just about nothing about them, other than that they died, not even how it happened). Now, it seems Ben hasn’t been sleeping, has not been hungry in days yet remains fit, and has the occasional blackout in his memory.

Caught on camera at night by Derik, Sara or John, Ben seems dazed, has killed a pet or two, and his pupils are turning pale blue. He also seems a bit dazed, hostile, and inarticulate other than a roar or two. Oh, and as they mention in all the film’s official summaries, people have started to disappear in part or in whole. Personally, I believe the trailer gives too much away, and I’m glad I didn’t watch it first, though it is quite effective.

Borrowing a small bit from The Beast Within (1982), we don’t really know about Ben’s lineage, and what is happening is not explained because it is obviously not understood even by its participants, but my guess is something innate and primal.

I must say, generally, I’m done with found footage (ff); usually same old, same old. However, this film is actually one of the better indies I’ve seen use it. Most ff takes way too long setting up the back-story, or has too much superfluous nonsense supposedly to throw us off the track (e.g., the first 10-20 minutes of Cloverfield or everything except the last 10 minutes of The Blair Witch Project). Here, yes there is an introduction of the characters, but it’s balanced out well with the action and there is some character development even without much build-up of the actual histories of anyone. Part of the reason for this is the top-quality acting that Mills has found to voice his thoughts. Novakowski’s John is a bit over the top, but personally, I have friends who are like that naturally. Beaulieu’s passive-aggressive friendship, again, comes across as natural, and I can name some acquaintances of mine like that, as well. Ostrom comes across as the appropriate level of concern, affection and anger, without playing it off the scale. She’s attractive without being unrealistically model-ish (I promise you, that’s a high compliment), which makes the compassion factor for her that much higher.

Ben Moore mid-way through his changing
Of course, the film hinges on Celisano’s Ben. Having experience in both high drama and low comedy – heck, he played a hell of a young Capone recently – helps him be believable both as his “day person” and whatever it is he becomes at night, even when they jump-cut from one to another.

As for the rest of the cast, which is mostly seen in a party sequence and the after-effects, the body count is pretty low, but quite effective, especially as the story builds to its gruesome conclusion.

It’s easy to tell this film didn’t cost too much to make, other than a few minor CGI moments here and there. But it definitely kept me wanting more, which is rare for a “Hello!? I’m walking through the dark house with just the camera light on! Is there anyone or thing waiting to jump out at me around the corner?!?” film. It’s effectively done to keep the creepy factor on high. Sure, I would have run to the authorities of some sort (other than the one weak-willed priest they show) as soon as I saw the blue/white eyes the first time to try and seek help for my friend, but hey, that’s (a) not how these genres works, and (b) wouldn’t help advance the story much. Just think of The Exorcist (1973), and how much the parts of Reagan going to see the doctors during the second act slowed down the story flow, even if it was what would really have happened).

Considering how much I groaned at the prospect of seeing another ff flick, I sure am glad I stuck it out, because it really was fun, with very little drag to it, even with all the open questions. Perhaps this will lead to a sequel? Yeah, I’d watch that, as this is the rare film I saw and thought, hmm, I wonder what happened after the film concluded. Nice work.