All genres of suspense, terror, and horror will be reviewed by Richard Gary. His address to send preview copies supplied upon request to rbf55@msn.com.
In this convoluted and revolving
story, Rose White (Hannah Schick) is given a task by her dad (Kenneth Hughes)
to give eviction papers to a mysterious woman (Nancy Murray) who may be an
“enchantress” (aka witch; more on that later). She “bewitches” (drugs) Rose,
and the story is on its way. Kinda.
Hannah Schick
Filmed in Delaware, Rose and her questionable
friend Greta (Lauren Lakis) – as in Gretel – find themselves repeating their actions, and nearly
always trying to get out of a seemingly never-ending cornfield. Each variation
they go through starts similarly, but turns out different once they approach
the weird house inhabited (once or still) by the strange woman, with each character
playing kind of a different part in the story section, always leading to a
result that also changes.
This highly praised film is based on
a number of different fairy tales (in case you didn’t recognize the name “Rose
White”), such as the Briar (cornfield), Hansel and Gretel being lost in the
woods (again, the cornfield), a father that is clueless, a lack of an older positive
female/mother figure, a wicked witch (possible step-mother in one variation?) doling
out curses, and so on.
Lauren Lakis
There is also a smattering of more
modern fictions as well, with influences like Groundhogs Day (1993), Run
Lola Run (1998), Thinner (1996), Drag Me to Hell
(2009) and The Shining (1980). The
circular nature of the story and the “shooting the messenger” (cursing) come
together in snippets.
My problem is that, well, rather than
being dragged to hell, to me the film just dragged. By about the halfway time,
I no longer cared. Watching someone – or sometimes two or more people in some
cases – walking through a cornfield really started to wear on me, making me
more impatient than filled with dread. As they continued to just walk and walk
and walk, my interest began to increasingly decline. But I stuck it through the
entire thing, waiting for the end result and explanation.
Considering the opening sequence, I
am guessing that the whole thing was a psychotropic-induced nightmare, but it’s
not really explained nor resolved. In fact, none of it really makes much sense,
other than the most basic premise. There is no feeling of horror, no
anticipation, and no angst that reached outside of the characters to me. I was
left confused, befuddled, and not sure of what I was seeing, or what it meant
to the story.
Nancy Murray
For example, there is a scene where
Greta steps out of the cornfield. Shot from the front, she is dressed; shot
from the back she is not. Okay, I understand she is supposed to be a seductress
at this moment, but the dual shot makes no sense to the story (other than the
actress not wanting to be shot topless, I suppose, even though there are many
shots of both women being obviously braless, and the camera focusing on them bending
over).
Even the direction is pretty solid,
with beautiful shots and a languid feel. It’s the story that is the weak point
to me. This makes me sad, actually, as there is a lot going for it, and if the
plot was stronger, without so many questions that left me scratching my head,
it could have been much more powerful to me. Sigh.
Cinema can be like poetry, with
layers (rows?) of symbolism that cloud the context, and often a masturbatory
vision for the creators that is deeply meaningful for some, and hard to read
for others. It’s not a matter of good
or bad, it’s on a different level of
abstraction. Perhaps a commentary track could have been used to do some
‘splainin’, as Ricky Ricardo might have said. There are, however, no extras
other than the chapters.
If
you will indulge me the flash of ego, I’m a smart guy. I have a Master’s degree
from a credible university, a long reach in cinema history, and know how to put
together a metaphor. And yet, when it comes to a certain level of esoterica and abstraction, I
get a bit lost.
As
an undergrad, I had a professor who was into expressionist and surrealistic
films by the likes of Stan Brakhage, and would show us their works such as Dog Star Man (1961-64). Without being able to read
the films due to lack of narrative storylines, I was completely lost. It’s
another reason I’ve avoided James Joyce’s novels Ulysses
(1922) and Finnegans Wake (1939). This
situation was handled beautifully in a 1963 animated short, The Critic (1963; starring Mel Brooks, and which won an Oscar for Animated Short, by the way). I know I’m
digressing, but there is a bit of that here, as well, though I am hardly
comparing this film to them.
The Wife
A
man with wild eyes credited as The Husband (Ben Kepley) is sitting in his
living room. Meanwhile, The Wife (Tyler Antoine), whose face throughout the
film is covered in cream (looks like the shaving kind) and has cucumber wedges
over her eyes, lolls around on a couch. They are both in a stream of
consciousness state (drug induced, perhaps?), daydreaming about themselves in various
situations. For example, he imagines himself as Jesus, in robes and carrying a
wooden cross medallion (like the size Eastern Orthodox priests wear); she pictures herself dancing
with a deranged looking football player?/fan? (Andrew Freud), who is often
smacking and pursing his lips. We also follow his fantasy, at some point.
About
half way through, there is a nicely done gory scene that is reminiscent of the
Black Dahlia murder in 1947 (I’m willing to bet it was an influence), which is
actually key to a way to look at this film. Rather than just being
surrealistic, it would perhaps be better categorized (if that’s possible) into
Transgressive Cinema, a movement come to fruition in the 1980s with the likes
of Richard Kern and Nick Zedd. I kept expecting Lydia Lunch to show up at any
moment. While the original group used S8mm film, this one is Shot-on-Video (SOV).
However, it is the shaky camera, lack of dialog and the repetitive industrial electronic
music that help indicate the genre.
Then
there’s the Bazooka Joe redheaded serial killer… I call him that because of his
tendency of covering the lower half his face with his turtleneck sweater.
In
the end, the fault lies not in the stars but in myself. What I mean by that is, much
like Black Metal or Electronica, I have very little point of reference. Simply
put, I honestly don’t know if this film is brilliant or twaddle. Even with its
listed $100 budget, you can tell a hell of a lot of work went into the editing
of this baby (did I mention the amount of abuse a baby dolly with a gold-painted head
is given in the second act? Uff da!).
Honestly,
I wish I could give you a profound and deep analysis of what the cream on the
face meant, or what the (lawn) grass “Jesus” had on his lap was for that made him so
happy, or even the apparent affection between the football guy and the killer.
Not a clue.
I’ve
long-time learned that a reviewer or critic (whichever you want to use as a reference) is more a gatekeeper than a gate. What that means is that one could read
a review and then go watch it anyway. Never let someone’s opinion (or in my
case ignorance) stop or compel you from seeing a work. Decide for yourself. It’s
easy in this case, because the film is free on YouTube (see the link above, or the
trailer, below).
The people who brought you the
incredibly creepy short, “Lights Out,” are back with a new quickie piece with a
similar theme that is well written by Sandberg, and acted by Lotta Losten, who
also starred in that film as well. A woman is locked in what looks more like a
storage basement than attic, with little wire cages sealed by a gym lock.
Something is moving around and as it creeps along, the light bulbs start
twisting off by themselves. It’s creepy, short, and well shot. And effective.
Little time, and lots of tension. I really like these guys. Interestingly,
there is a “Making Of” available on YouTube that’s about twice as long as the
film itself, but I didn’t watch it.
There is a maxim that states that the
introduction of a new technology does not change any one thing, it changes everything, and that all technologies are
a “Faustian Bargain”: to accept the good, you must also take in the negative.
There is also a discussion going among New Technology scholars on whether it is
accurate to compare internet usage such as on iPhones, and laptops, to addiction. This aspect is
explored in this surprisingly gruesome film.
Albert, a chubby telecommuter (played by the director, Turner Stewart), is
living with his fiancée, Vanessa (Alix Miller). But under his user name, Sgtecchi (ecchi, is Japanese hentai slang for
“dirty” or “sexy,” FYI), he is not only uncontrollably drawn to a particular
animated porn site, but with a particular character, also named Vanessa2
(Dionne Copland), to the point of obsession. He’s missed work and ignored
Vanessa, nicely presented as having Miller talk, with no audible voice, as
Albert stares past her at his computer. As a two-day period veers on, things
take a sinister turn that will effect (and affect) everyone in this
three-identity piece. There is bound to be some comparisons to both Her (2013) and Videodrome (1983), and rightfully so, but that’s okay because it
goes to some nice and moist extremes. Some of the SFX indicate the low budget,
but others are incredible considering
the mico-budget. An particularly well-developed and intriguing film, I just
want to add it’s worth the view, and also, “All hail the new flesh!” Oh, and
although I’ve included it, the trailer below doesn’t really tell you much
(okay, anything), but don’t let that
fool you, it’s truly impressive.
Trailer:
HI KNK
Acting Institute
Written,
directed (etc.) by Bahaish Kapoor
7:21
minutes, 2014
A really nicely done short from India
(in English) that seems to rely on the Japanese trope of the possible haunting
by a dead child (Vipassana Kapoor). A doctor (Monica Gill) thinks she’s
hallucinating, and trying to call a colleague in the middle of the night
seeking help, but the apparition keeps turning up. There is a hint of why this
is happening, but not much detail. It’s hair-raising and also employs the
common Japanese device of the moving elevator. Even though these elements are
oft used, it’s effective here.
Much like Scream (1996) – and I’m going to guess that I’m not the only one
who is going to make the comparison – this film plays with the topes of the
slasher film. Beautiful Jenelle (Lily Berlina) is acting strange, by drinkin’,
dancin’, sexin’ with The Bait (as Scott Javore’s character is credited), and
checking off the list of slasher film clichés, trying to draw out a masked
serial killer (Adam Lesar). But not just jump scary, this also plays with the
genre, such as The Bait mentioning that the schoolmates keep saying he looks
like he’s 30 (i.e., actors playing teenagers being older than their
characters), and that the Killer is wearing not a white Shatner mask, ala Halloween, but rather a Leonard Nimoy
one. It’s both spooky and hysterical, especially if you get the references, and
I’m only touching on them. Enjoyable and intelligent from the first frame to
the last.
In the lush countryside of West Sussex,
along the southern edge of the U.K., we meet a Priest (Tom Driver) and a cop
(Tim Cullingsworth-Hudson). I won’t go into details as this is short and sweet
so I wouldn’t want to give the twist(s) away, as this would certainly be more
thriller than horror (though the definition of “Opus Dei” scares the crap outta
me more than most fictional tales). What I will say is that in its brevity, the
actors, especially Driver, are effective in this account that has a bit of a Miller’s Crossing (1990) vibe, but is
more present day than flashback. Najdzien, in his first film, effectively
presents the viewer with a premise and then sucker-punchers you. Honestly, I
figured out the twist before the big reveal, but that didn’t stop it from
working. I was impressed by Najdzien’s camerawork, especially one scene where
you see the front of a car at an angle, and the trunk close in the windshield reflection, rather than the actual
action. Nicely done. I certainly look forward to more work from him.
Perhaps I’m from too far up in Yankee
country (Mason-Dixon wise, not the Bronx Bombers), but I’ve never heard of this
Appalachian=based American Folk Horror Tale of an English speaking big cat that
comes after people in desolate areas who have taken his tail. What the beastie
says, over and over, is “Taily-po, taily-po, give me back my taily-po” (it’s
pronounced “-poh,” and in “po’ boy”). Hunting for food in a desolate area free
of game (I think there is a hint that the cat is the reason) is a backwoods
man, Levon (David Chattam), who shares his cabin and life with his beloved dog,
Jasper (Ranger). Taking a shot at some apparent food, all he gets is the tail
(enough to make some soup). Well, you know who’s gonna come a-callin’ lookin’
fer it back. Without giving too much away I hope, the creature is a bit
reminiscent of the Michael Jackson Thriller
werecat, made by puppetmaster Dustin Mills, who knows about these things. It is man (and dog) against creature, but I
won’t say who wins. The fall (spring?) brown-leafed woods of Kentucky fills in
beautifully under McCasland’s direction in a story that’s loyal to the folktale, and shot to give a bit of a claustrophobic field,
even in the out of doors. You can see
the whole film below:
Film:
Thresher
Directed
by Mike Diva (aka Michael Dahlquist) and Sam Shapson
Legendary
Pictures
7:41
minutes, 2014
Nick Gregorio is stuck in a room for a
reason we are not privy to for a while, locked by a bunch of chains and
combination locks. He works on the numbers methodically and takes them off one
by one until all but one is left. Time, however, is running out, as demonic
creatures are ever moving forward. It takes a while for this to take off, but
once it gets going, it does not let up. With CGI backgrounds and creatures,
great and small, we get to see and feel his terror. The thingies looked a bit
familiar, and then I realized some of the work was done by ScreamerClauz, who
did the effects for (and directed) Where
the Dead Go to Die (2012). Some imagery is also reminiscent of both The Mist (2007) and John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), but by no means is the story
weighed down by it.
Film:
Trouser
Snake
Written
and directed by Alex DiVincenzo
Grimbridge
Productions
4:50
minutes, 2016
www.facebook.com/grimbridgeprods
While being, quite frankly, nonsensical,
every moment of this film is enjoyable. And that’s with an estimated $100
budget! The setting is a world that is kind of a mix of mid-1950s “Gee Whiz”
dialogue and visuals, and present day bone-jumping horndogs. Perhaps this is a
spoof of a “Sex Warning” scare film, though it’s in full and clear color. It
shoots back and forth between the narrative of poor Thomas (Alexander
Gauthier), a [supposed] teen who is having a bit of trouble you-know-where
(read the title, that’s all I’m gonna say). His doctor (Michael Thurber in a
facially expressive turn) doesn’t know what to make of the – er – situation, and Thomas’s girlfriend Lucy
(Jamie Lyn Bagley, who as I’ve said before, has a wondrous sense of both comic
timing and expression; she should be hired on a sit-com) is in the car and
ready to take it to the next step…aggressively. There is no explanation for the
events (hey, it is under 5 minutes), but who cares. I’m assuming it’s both a
satire of a cautionary tale. Screw it; I just know I smiled through the whole
thing.
Truth
be told, there are three essential reasons why I was looking forward to seeing
this film. First and foremost, it was directed by Dustin Wayde Mills, whose
works never fail to please, even when it sometimes gets me squeamish. The
second reason is Brandon Salkil (okay, and
Dave Parker), who often appear in Mills’ productions; Mills,Salkil and Parker
are also besties off-screen). Those are the good
reasons. The silly yet still honest one is that I was very curious to know
whether the title means (a) someone who is lamed (IN-vah-lid), (b) someone who is cancelled out (in-VAL-lid), or (c) both.
There
are two, perhaps three central characters in the film. First off, is the titular,
Andrew (Salkil) who, thanks to a previous accident, is in a catatonic state of
being a “living vegetable” (a descriptor within the story); Salkil – therefore Andrew
– is a tall guy, hunched into his wheelchair. The second and central role is
his sister, Agnes (Joni Durian), who takes over as caretaker. While not a
beanpole, I wonder how she moves him from the bed to the chair and back by
herself, but I digress... The lesser third is the physical therapist, Daryl
(Parker), who has a bit of a thing for Agnes. I could also add in Daryl’s
friend, Jake, whose sole reason for existence here is essentially to help us
understand what Daryl is thinking through verbalization, and also to crack wise
as the comic relief. He’s played by the director, Mills.
Through
the story we quickly learn that Andrew has a way of communicating with Agnes…
or does he? How much of this is really happening and how much is in her head,
is one of the mind games the film plays with the audience. Is this a kind of Patrick (1978) vibe, or all PTSD? The
publicity for Invalid equates it with
Italian giallo horror of Argento and Fulci. Well, I can see it more as the
former than the latter, as Argento was as much about the internal as the
visual, but Fulci was much more about the graphic. I must say I was impressed
by the murders here, especially the first one. Now, I’m certainly not saying it’s
anticlimactic because the pace definitely keeps up, but that beginning one is
just so well done. It’s not gory, just really effective.
Joni Durian
As
Agnes, Durian is an attractive woman playing frumpy. Ever notice how many horror film caretakers are plain and
disheveled, even all the way back to Julie Harris’ Eleanor in 1963’s The Haunting? Perhaps to make her look
sallow, or to set a mood, Agnes is often dressed in yellow, and shot with lemony
lighting. I’m guessing a bit of both (again), because when things get tense,
the lighting changes to a red tone. More films are using colored lighting as
much as music to set the tone of the scene, which works strongly here.
As
far as the frumpy part goes, it’s pretty obvious that beneath the huge red
frames, the slicker, and the loose clothes, Agnes is quite a catch, even though
in the storyline there is a reason why she dresses down. However, thanks to an
early shower scene, we get to know the book under the cover, as it were, In
fact, there are a few shower scenes with various characters throughout, and
plenty of female flesh (no male nudity, though Mills has proven that’s not
something he necessarily shies away from).
Salkil
doesn’t really need to do much, other than lay as still as possible, though
there is a highly dramatic and creepy physical flashback scene. He has proven
that he can be a fine, highly emotive actor in both dramatic and comedic roles.
Even when he’s completely limp, there is still a feeling of dread or danger,
and I chalk that up to both his skill
onscreen, and of Mills’ effective use of moodiness.
From
his silly (but highly enjoyable; not meant as anything but complimentary) films
early on, Mills has come to master the simple less-is-more style of
presentation that I thoroughly enjoy. Usually there are no elaborate sets, and
the stories tend to be pretty straightforward, but there is always the twist of
the knife (sometimes literally) and plot that just keeps you drawn in.
Yet,
despite the simplicity, Mills often uses some quirk that you just don’t expect.
For example, during a conversation, the film suddenly turns to a moving manga
comic style that works to explain emotions that straight dialog has trouble
getting through. This is a really nice and surprising touch.
Andrew
demands blood, much like the plant from Little
Shop of Horrors (1960 or 1986), to make him big and strong, but only from
women. I first questioned the gender demand, i.e., what makes women’s blood
different from men’s, but the symbolism of loss of virginity – even from a paid
escort – shows a deranged mind through subjective experience. I’m hoping this
isn’t too much of a spoiler alert.
The
only two negative things I could see are pretty petty and, quite frankly,
ridiculous on my part. First, there is a scene with Andrew on a respirator, and
it is silent. As having been in a room with someone in that condition more than
once, I can tell you, it’s quite noticeable. Even if you have sleep apnea, the CPAP
machine, which is a junior version of an inhalation device, is noisy. The
second thing is I believe that there is too much information given about motive
in the trailer. Don’t get me wrong, I am a coming attractions fan from
childhood, but I’m glad I waited until after seeing the film before enjoying
the teasers (as I tend to do now with those I review).
So,
the question of what the title means, as I mentioned in the first paragraph?
Well, I would say (c) as yes, Andrew is an invalid, but through events that
occur or have occurred (again, or both), Agnes and Andrew’s lives become
cancelled, one by the accident, and the second by giving up her life to care
for him, another by other’s actions.
A
good story, some great visuals, and a finely honed cast a crew make this
another peg in Mills’ directorial cap, one that should be worn proudly.
Interesting
premise here. It starts off with a simple image of cute Cindy (not Sidney) sitting
down in front of the television with some popcorn for the evening. As a cool
quick easy-to-miss visual, her parking herself down is reflected in the action
on the television at the same time, although the person on the television is
not her. Anyhoo, the phone rings, and the opening call from Scream (1996) happens (of course, she
doesn’t like horror films, so she cannot “play”), and is beset by a quartet of
serial killers: Spookface from the previously mentioned Scream, the fisherman from I
Know What You Did Last Summer (1997), a white and more literal version of
the Candyman (1992), and a woman named Brenda whose affiliation escapes me
(perhaps 1998’s Urban Legend, as they
mention it indirectly?). They, in turn are attacked by a pair of serial killer
hunters.
Steve Rudzinski
I
know that director Rudzinski is a comic book fanatic of fanboy level (meant as
a compliment), and as such he sets this film up as almost an X-Men vs. Brotherhood of Mutants, with
humor. In fact, part of his real life is
playing action heroes and villains such as the Beach Boys… I mean Spiderman at
big events. A particularly funny bit involves “Frank” (aka Freddy K), played by
Rudzinski with two gloves, rather
than one, as he waits in Slasher hell for the chance to go back to Earth.
Apparently,
the old guard slashers are being put aside for the new, more recent killers. In
other words, this film is a sidebar companion to Rudzinski’s previous films,
such as the intelligent and no-reason mass murderous, Everyone Must Die! (aka EMD!;
2012). On the other end of the spectrum (i.e., the good guys) include the
presence of the title characters from Capt.
Z and the Terror of Leviathan (2014) and even Wolfster, Part I: The Curse of the Emo Vamp (2006; a film I haven’t
seen yet, sad to say, also played by Rudzinski, reprising his original role as
the avenging werewolf).
The
good team is filled with not only heroes from Radzinski films, but also the
villains are both also from his previous releases, and others who are veiled mainstream
slashers. But mostly what makes this film just so great (especially as it’s a
love letter to the fans), is its self-referential humor. There are a lot of laughs built in, though if you’ve
never seen any of Radzinski’s work, it may leave you scratching your head on
occasion.
Part
of the referentiality is the breaking of the fourth wall: not in talking to the
audience, but rather things like Wolfie saying, “One of my super powers is
knowing that we’re actually in a film,” and then picking up a script to see
what’s next. However, there is some much subtler rib-stickers, such as the people
playing Spookface including writer/actor Michael Varrati, who has written some
amazing films like The Sins of Dracula
in 2014 for director Richard Griffin, and Dustin Wayde Mills, who directed the
likes of Puppet Monster Massacre (2010)
and the more recent Her Name is Torment franchise.
Now,
if you haven’t seen the previous films, would you be lost? Not necessarily, as
so many of the villain characters are shadows of those familiar to all of us
horror fans, both indie and mainstream. Not sure? Well, hell, check it out, it’s
short at just over half an hour, and what’s more it’s free at the following
site – and make sure you stick around for after the credits:
So, the reason I put these two reviews
together is that they both deal with getting invitations to deadly parties at
mansions, with supernaturally charged results. They also have prologue-stories
from quite a time ago, the first is 1925 and the second 1931, respectively.
Stand-up
comic Robert Klein used to have a routine dealing with a fake commercial where
you could purchase every record that was ever recorded [HERE]. Never mind lions and tigers and bears, for this flick it’s zombies and vampires
and demons and werewolves and serial killers and werewolves and ghosts and…
If
there is a subgenre you like, you’re sure to find it here in a throw a dart at
a board topic. Michael Donahue does two things to excess in the film. One is
the genre mashup, and the other is the cameo parade; but more on the latter
later.
There’s
a party going on at the mysterious Mayhew Mansion, now owned by a sleazy
businessman who has a mysterious and cantankerous caretaker (Gary “Buddy Holly”
Busey). It’s being catered by possibly the only sane character in the cast (Robert
Picardo, the holographic doctor from Star
Trek: Voyager) and his nutzoid wife (Bronx-born Lorainne Ziff).
There
is going to be a full moon eclipse, which is the reason for the joyous
gathering – for most – and strange things are afoot when a late-20s high school
senior (you know what I mean) witch-in-the-literal-sense
brings back her dead ex-boytoy to see if he had bought a lottery ticket before
he died. Yes, if you’re wondering, this is a comedy.
I
must say, much of the writing is goofy-smart, with intentionally painful dialog
(and acting) such as, “People are dropping like flies, and one by one they’re
being murdered…” It is not, however, as just plain bad as are most spoofs, such
as the Teen Movie / Scary Movie
(well, at least after the first one, which was decent) releases – you know,
like Vampires Suck (2010); it’s also
not, however, brilliant either. Thankfully, it is somewhat enjoyable.
Let
me show my hand by saying the negative thing first, and then go on to the
positives from there: there is just too much happening. Employing practically
no narrative, it is a bunch of set pieces that seem to be randomly stitched
together in a way where it will jump from Scene 1 to Scene 2 to Scene 3 to Scene
2 to Scene 3 to Scene 1 to Scene 4 to… You get my drift? The good thing about
this is that it’s hard to predict what is going to happen because most of it
seems so arbitrary. There are some exceptions though, such as obviously the mummy (nice make-up job,
by the way) is going to come to life – but the conclusion of that bit is pretty
enjoyable.
Like
any mashup, there is bound to be something to make any genre fan happy. At
first, honestly, I didn’t get what was going on, thinking that the director
couldn’t make up his mind on a genus, but as it continued I had a mixture of “Aaaaaah”
and “Duhhhhh,” and was kind of relieved
that there was a point-not-to-have-a-point to the whole thing.
There
are certainly more characters than you can shake a stick at, and most of them are
pretty superfluous other than fodder for whatever mayhem at the Mayhew
residence turns up (oh, and Busey does the Mayhem/Mayhew joke in the film, so
it’s not my pun, sorry to say).
Along
with Busey and Picardo is a host of names that either may be famous one day, or
were in their time. For example, there is Terry Moore, who was not only
incredibly gorgeous back when, e.g., have you seen her in Mighty Joe Young (1949)?, but was also mysteriously married to Charles
Foster Kan…I mean William Randolph Hearst. Also in the film, at 102, is Carla
Laemmle (d. 2014), who is the daughter of Carl Laemmle (d. 1939; if you have to
ask who that is, you need to get some horror history background lessons, son).
There
are many others with familiar last names who are or could be related to bigger
fish, such as Calista Carradine, John Barrymore III, and Katherin Kovin-Pacino
(Al’s fourth step-mom).
While
I realize this is a spoof, the cliché thing to do, in my opinion, is ham
acting. To be the most effective, I believe, is to have every actor do their
A-game work, and then have all the goofy things go off around them and have
them act like it’s the best script – play against the joke rather than be part it.
Now that is powerful and much more
effective. Part of the reason gritty shows like Prime Suspect (1991-2006) worked so well is because the norm was on
the level of an Agatha Christie slow burner (“Oh, look, someone’s killed Bunny.”
“Better put the kettle on and ring the coppers.” “Right-o.”), and it was the juxtaposition
that helped make it stand out so firmly.
There
is some topless scenes full of inflated boobs (one of the more successful jokes
constitutes around this) seemingly bunched together in the center of the story.
There is also some decent gore, though arguably not enough for the action.
Another
potential drawback to a film with this multitude of cast is that there is not
much screen time for any particular one of them, so the chance of any kind of
compassion or empathy, even for a sendup comedy – is lost to the flashiness and
the skit. It becomes a bit overambitious in its cheesiness, and could lose some
viewers that way. Odds are, though, most won’t care and will enjoy the
strangeness.
Mainly,
I found the film enjoyable. Perhaps not a stream of “badda-boom” jokes, but
more on a subtle level that will have you saying, “Oh, I know that reference.” It
reminded me of the old Carry On films,
with camp leading the way.
Death’s Door (aka
The Trap Door)
Written and directed by Kennedy
Goldsby Leomark Studios / Hi Point Studios /
Goodness Media 92
minutes, 2011 / 2015 www.LeomarkStudios.com www.MvdVisual.com
After
the prologue, we meet a bunch of overage teens (sound familiar?) who get a
mysterious and anonymous invitation to attend a party at a maudlin mansion
(supposedly filmed at an actual haunted one). This is a device that, if I remember
correctly, was first used by Agatha Christie in And Then There Were None (aka Ten
Little Indians or
by an even more racist title) in 1939. Since then, it’s been
a common trope used to the point of cliché. Hell, there was even a porn version
in 1985 called Ten Little Maidens.
Most
of the dozen or so kids are nothing
short of stereotypes of obnoxious characters, such as the pretty mean girl with
a Kristen Bell look (who keeps ending words with that truly annoying “ah” sound,
e.g., “no-wah; I don’t want to-wah; Why-yah”), the virgin guy with Harry Styles
hair on steroids, the jocks, the chestbeating morons, the “good girl” (a Tara
Reid clone), some Latinas and the solo cool
Black guy (who, by the way, is also a macho cliché).
Lots of windows...
When
they get into the mansion, the doors lock, and they naturally panic and turn on
each other. What, no one ever heard to throwing something out a window? These guys
obviously don’t give a damn about anything, so that they don’t trash the place
at the very least – never mind pounding through doors – doesn’t feel honest for
whom these knuckleheads are. How dumb you ask? My favorite line is from the
mean girl who says, “I got nothing [sic]
against Kendra, I just don’t like that bitch.”
When
doors finally do get open occasionally here and there, they open to other rooms
that weren’t there before, a device used before more successfully in the film Grave Encounters (2011); similar to that
other film, time becomes questionable. There is even a pinching from The Wizard of Gore (1970) and The Wizard of Oz (1939; i.e., seeing
events in an hourglass). But, we all know there is bound to be a reason why
they are all at the house, and we have to wait until the end until we find out.
Unfortunately, even that’s a cop out. And don’t get me started on the
one-sided, non-yellowed newspaper clips from 1931, if I really wanted to get
picky (you can make two-sided print-out, y’know).
Also
inhabiting the house are three ghosts. There is a magician (character actor Obba
Babatundé) who died tragically in the prologue and doesn’t do much else, his unfaithful
wife who does even less, and a huge black servant with a burned face (played
gloweringly by ex-footballer Tommy “Tiny” Lister. He’s the best thing about the
film, and the only ghost we see actually physically interact with thekids.
As
for most of the rest of the cast, they’re kind of bland characters. Some of the
acting is fine, but it’s either so overwrought or underplayed, mixed with
highly questionable storytelling and editing, that I kept waiting for someone
to start shouting “Game over, maaan! Game over!” in that Dana Carvey voice imitating
the guy in Aliens (1986). And yet, even
with all the shenanigans going on, hook-ups continue to happen. Whaaaa? During
one of the get-togethers, the indoor curtains are strongly blowing in a wind,
so does that mean a window is open? Again, throw something the fuck out the
window and get out. If someone tried and the windows wouldn’t crack, that would
be something, but the writing is just not that great, so no one does. It tells
a lot about the film’s zeitgeist.
Some
of the gore effects look pretty good, though flashed more than shown (thank
goodness for freezeframe). There is not enough of it, however, to balance the
dearth of a story. As for nudity, even with the few sex scenes, it’s scarce.
The
extras are a music video and a 7-minute “Behind the Scenes” where some cast and
crew (including the director) discuss just how creepy it was to be in the
house, and how some saw what they think was a ghost or two. Sadly, it was the
best part of the DVD.
If
it sounds like I’m being hard on the film, well, yes, I am. I love a ghost
story more than a slasher film, but this was underwritten, overacted,
overedited and left with too many holes. Bummed me out, because I wanted to
really like this.
Ahhh, the Bigfoot
subgenre. I reviewed one for this blog called Fear the Forest (2009) and another called – I kid you not – Sexsquatch (2012) The last one was from
Australia called Throwback (2013),
and now this one is from the wild and woody area around North Carolina.
John Bobek as Ben
Over a
holiday visit down South, we meet our central characters, Ben (John Bobek), a
ginger from Chicago who works in Social Media, and his girlfriend, Annie (Tarah
DeSpain), a Greensboro local whose reputation whose high school nickname
starting with the word “Crazy…” She, of course, being computer-phobic, isn’t
even on Facebook (is it any shock she does not have a job in Chi-Town?). Opposites
attract, I guess, but should they always?
From the
start, Ben comes across at first as a bit of an elitist urban-vs.-rural dick
who doesn’t cotton well to all the old boyfriends hitting on his gal, but is not
enough of a he-man to fight them off.
Actually, I respect him for that last part; similarly, she should be more
sensitive to him being a “stranger in a strange land” than feeding into his
jealousy. I would say the same thing if it was reversed, if one of his citified
friends picked on her in the Windy City for being a Country Girl.
Yeah, from
in the onset, the story starts off a bit like Straw Dogs (the real one, 1971; wonder if it’s a coincidence that
his name is Ben, the name of Dustin Hoffman’s character in 1967’s The Graduate, who would play the lead in
StrawDogs… yeah, probably a stretch and a case of Cultural Overthinkingitis). Leading the redneck side is Paul
(Jeramy Blackford), who from the gecko
(yeah, I do know the correct word) you wouldn’t trust with a donut and a
pickle.
Tarah DeSpain as Annie
One piece
of information we learn right off (and it is in the trailer) is that her
boyfriend doesn’t know that she is interested in the Bigfoot, and as a teen she
and her friends would camp out searching for it; this includes the comedy
relief character, Jed (Justin Giddings, doing an occasional scene-stealing turn),
who is just as much into it as Annie. I’m assuming that these “hunting trips”
included some large amounts of partying from the looks of things.
Of course,
our unbelieving intrepid weenie Yankee is taken on a Bigfoot camping search
with Annie, some of her friends (aka the
fodder), and the outing’s instigator, Paul, who you just know has some
devious plan behind all this, and y’get the feeling Ben is not going to like it.
At all. But will he grow a pair like Hoffman in Dogs? I’m not promoting machismo masculinist training, I’m just going
with the story, donchaknow?
An
interesting aspect of films like this, which is actually closer to fact than is
usually acknowledged, is that all the yokels call Ben “City Boy,” but when he
uses the term “Redneck” after some of their despicable behavior, he gets called
out on it. That’s a very Republican sensibility; if I do it, I’m expressing my
freedom. If you do it, you are warring on my freedom.” This is both very blatantly
and subtly indicated multiple times. I’m not sure which side the director falls
on, but I will posit that he is a Greensboro native (mind you, the one time I
was in Greensboro, I met some incredibly wonderful people).
For the
first half of the film, during the Dogs part,
as I refer to it, I was feeling kind of restless, but not necessarily in a good
way. The whole “let’s gang up on the stranger” mentality is one I’ve never been
casual with, though I understand it’s point to make it uncomfortable; if it was me in that situation, however, rather
than be jealous of something that happened years ago, I would laugh Jeff off,
especially his intention to steal his ex-fling, Annie. To his face. I’ve done
it and it works as long as it’s in a public shared space and everyone around is
informed and understands the context; if it’s approached defensively, the Ben
position doesn’t have a chance. Besides, if nerdy Ben is that insecure about
his relationship with wild-child Annie, he shouldn’t be in the relationship. I
mean, he’s probably going to have to go back South again if the relationship is
to continue, as her mother lives there. There’s new thing out called The Holidays during the last two months
of the year.
The film's original poser
It’s the
second half of the picture where the story and interest really starts to pick
up, once you get past the portal of the stereotypical pair of hunt’n’ good-ol-boys, who are the
slasher film equivalent of the weirdo loner who warns everyone to stay away! That’s about the time we get
to finally reach where we all know the general direction of where the story is
going, in the form of the beastie.
Ah, yes,
the beastie. I’ve seen some really terrible Sasquatch costumes in my time,
because it essentially comes down to a person in a suit, after all. Well, I’m
happy to say that this one actually looks really good (you can see a couple of
flashes of him – I’m assuming it’s a he considering
some of his actions – in the trailer and on the poster). I’m even willing to
forgive the sole layer of the creature’s foot/boot which is evident at the
one-minute mark of the trailer, though it’s much easier to see in the film
itself. The reason is that everything
else about the monster and including the body SFX of the victims, looks pretty
nice. Not a huge body count, but an effective one.
Despite
the nebbishness of Ben, Bobek fleshes him out a bit, and makes him a character
you may not like on some level, but you can put yourself in his shoes and feel sorry
for him as a bully target. I don’t know if I felt the compadre level with him as he stands up for himself though I
supposedly should, but it does take a lot for him to give any credibility. Even
after this, I hope Annie dumps him. The cute DeSpain also does well with Annie
as the flip side of Ben’s personality. While he is an off-putting in a
know-it-all way, Annie is equally annoying in that she doesn’t really seem to
give a shit about him as she flirts back with her exes. Again, DeSpain makes
her human and not just a mean girl,
though I would also like to add that if Annie doesn’t dump Ben, Ben should also
ditch her. They are so not right for each other. It’s Blackford’s Paul who
seems the most real, though, and I hated his bully character, which is why I
thought Blackford stood out so well. Paul is the only member of the triangle
that remains true to himself: a conniving bastard.
Of course,
there has to (and should be) a cameo of a genre star from the past who can
headline. In this case, it’s Theresa Tilly, who plays Annie’s mom in the first
couple of scenes (yeah, she’s in the trailer, too). Tilly is better known among
us who grew up on VHS as Shelly, one of the not-so-fortunate cabin dwellers in
the 1981 classic Evil Dead. Back then,
she went by the nom de acting of Sarah
York.
While some
of the action is predictable, such as the manning up of Ben, there are some
nice and different twists and turns, and a chance for a sequel. I say sit through
the first half and think of it as the cranking ride up the coaster, and then
enjoy the ride down.
