SLAY BELLS

THE SETUP

Firstly, I just want to say a big thanks to John Iwasz and Small Basket Studios, along with director Tom Smith, for allowing me to view an online screener of the 19 minute short film “Slay Bells”. Slay Bells is a Christmas themed slasher film that centers on Ray (played by Gabriele Bellotti), who spends Christmas Eve fooling around with Lisa (Abigail Foster), a girl he met at the local bar. He arrives home to Jen, his miserable alcoholic wife (played by Brandy Bryant), and their two kids Sally and Emily (Crystal and Sarah Smith). The two have a heated argument over where Ray has been, which is overheard by James (Curtis K Case), a black man dressed as Santa. What the family doesn’t know, is that James was recently dumped by his girlfriend and is out to make sure the naughty are punished before Christmas!

THE GOOD

This cool and ambitious slasher short was filmed in Pennsylvania for an estimated $1,000. The story is a similar one to that of the classic “Silent Night Deadly Night” 80’s slasher flick, which I’m almost sure inspired this. I was genuinely surprised at how loud and clear the dialogue audio was. My only criticism is that in certain rooms of the house there are inconsistencies in the volume. During the arguing, the levels started to peak out and the screaming is rather sharp. The way the first 5 or 6 minutes unfolded as Ray hooked up with Lisa, made for an interesting ending that I didn’t expect nor did I think would come back around as the final revelation. Speaking of Lisa, she looks lovely, sporting the naughty Santa outfit great stuff (haha). The acting is above average. Given the miniscule budget and experience levels of those involved, it all comes together pretty nicely. Brandy really sells Jen with that ugly personality and bullish demeanor. After all, she has reason to be paranoid when it comes to Ray’s agenda. Some of the lines between the two during their argument were delivered a little to jovial, but other than that most of it was well written.

Moreover, the inclusion of James as a black Santa was funny, and a really different take on the Christmas traditions. Fair enough, why can’t Santa be black (haha). The two best things about the film were the cool retro, John Hughes, three note, piano score straight out of Home Alone and the cool practical blood and gore effects. A lot of people don’t like it when filmmakers reference other films directly. They quickly want to stamp it as unoriginal or even suggest plagiarism was involved. Let’s face it, we are all inspired by things we grew up watching and really enjoying. It’s not hurting anybody to tip your hat to those that came before you, especially when it’s helping keep the classics alive. The action sequences/deaths in the film were all in good nature and felt like they were straight out of the 80’s. Slasher films weren’t as heavy on the blood and gore in years gone by, so I understand the decision to keep it simple. I’m a huge fan of practical blood and gore and I’m of the mindset, the more the better. Although, with a very small budget like this, there’s only so much you can do.

THE BAD

A couple of technical aspects, in regards to some of the camera work and the lighting fell a bit flat. Some of that again is down to the budget but also the lack of experience. I believe this is Tom’s first time behind the camera. He spent a lot of time with special effects and makeup, learning the craft from one of the genres best in Tom Savini. Here, he chooses some really smart shots with slick panning that look great, but then let’s himself down with a lot of handheld or still shots that lose their focus. The faces are framed decently but the background of entire rooms is out of focus and it becomes quite distracting. Some scenes could have been edited a little bit smoother as well. They opted to use a lot of natural light which was rather harsh looking and the second half, which takes place at night becomes a lot darker. I understand those are not easy things to perfect when your under the pump.

The story is entertaining enough, but it was difficult to buy that Ray and Jen were a couple, let alone had two kids. For one, the kids look to be about 10 and 12 and both Gabriel and Brandy only look to be really young themselves. It wasn’t crucial to the story that they even had kids, and I didn’t think at any point they would have had a functional or believable relationship, simply because they hated each other. Some of the humor is a little forced and awkward too. A few of the cheesy one liners worked, but the stuff between Lisa and Ray was just uncomfortable (haha). I mentioned the cool practical effects work, but I would have loved it if the crew had a bit more money to go all out with the blood and gore. Think, limbs being chopped off. Which we who have seen the film, would all agree Jen needed to experience. The final scenes in the bedroom could have benefited from more of the red stuff, maybe some blood spray up the wall or on the teddy bear, just small additions like that.

Slay Bells is a really ambitious and passion filled project, It’s evident in the entertainment value of the short. It’s got a great Hughes influenced score, with a hint of eerieness about it and plenty of unlikable people, who you get to see killed off in a fun way by a black Santa, of all people. Some of the writing and technical aspects could have been improved and if the special effects budget was a little higher, the gore could have been more memorable. Overall though, Slay Bells is a fun 19 minute short film, that shows the obvious potential Tom ‘Smitty’ Smith possesses, and I for one can’t wait to see what he does next!

Cheers Tom and Co!

My rating for “Slay Bells” is 6/10

FOR CLEARER SKIES

THE SETUP

Firstly, I just want to say thank you to writer and director Alfredo Salvatore Arcilesi, for giving me access to a screener of his award-winning, 12 minute short film, “For Clearer Skies”. The film stars Charles Lo Manto and Kelly-Marie Murtha. For Clearer Skies is part drama, part science fiction. The story focuses on a man and his struggle with deciding whether or not to pursue survival, as his race nears extinction. Alfredo is one of several directors that contacted me recently, hoping to have some of his work reviewed. It’s always my pleasure to be a part of reviewing indie films that don’t get the exposure they should, so cheers!

THE GOOD

The film opens with a man in a workshop, looking very ill and unaware of his surroundings. After a considerable amount of time spent vomiting, the man goes back to the vehicle he must have been working on. Shortly after, a mysterious woman enters the fold and things that were unclear begin to come to the surface. This is a really cool concept for a short film, there was a bit of Neill Blomkamp’s (District 9), about it. The audio levels are crisp and the camera shoots mainly still shots. Steadicam looks to have been used when following the actor, that looks good too. The color grading was perfect. It seemed very natural and the workshop made for a good location to shoot in. There isn’t any dialogue until the women enters about half way through, then things unfold in a really entertaining way, as she starts to converse with the man (these characters don’t have names, encase you were wondering haha).

The acting is solid and the style of audio chosen for the actors voices gives it the other worldly feel. Charles and Kelly will hopefully get the chance to work on something like this again, one can only hope a more extensive story is in the works. The aspect that stood out the most was definitely the makeup on Charles. Credit goes to Carlos Henriques, for a really unique look and that disfigured eye looked brilliant! Great stuff.

THE BAD

Some of the lighting in the first couple of minutes wasn’t that great. As the camera follows the man over to the work station, there’s a lot of shadow reflected from how dark the workshop is. It’s after he turns on a light underneath the hoist, that we get a better look at the actor. I know that’s probably intentional in creating some mystery about him, but the opening scene does that anyway and once the woman enters it’s much better lit. Given it’s only 12 minutes long, the short amount of dialogue conveys what you need to know. I would have liked to see it run a few minutes longer though. Maybe Alfredo could have incorporated a scene where the man is having some internal dialogue, which the audience would hear through voice over, telling us of this man’s struggle, that would have been cool.

I couldn’t think of a more deserving film to have won awards than For Clearer Skies. It’s a little disappointing that the idea wasn’t expanded on, because a full length feature is dying to be explored. Most of the technical aspects are good, the makeup is outstanding and those final shots of the film look wonderful. I’m stoked that I got the chance to see this awesome short and I will be watching and reviewing Alfredo’s new full length film “Canswer” in the coming days. I know nothing about it but I’m now very excited to watch it and that’s what these types of films can do!

My rating for “For Clearer Skies” is 8/10

GREATER THAN

THE SETUP

Firstly I just want to say thank you to Kyle Hytonen for putting a bunch of filmmakers onto me and my site. I recently reviewed Kyle’s short film “Massacre At Femur Creek” and he was kind enough to spread the word amongst his circle of friends, resulting in me getting the opportunity to review films like this one. “Greater Than”, is a 29 minute short horror film written and directed by Darryl Shaw, starring Adam Buller and Dana Tartau. The film is about a stubborn I.D forger named Ben, who falls for lovely, but emotionally damaged Lucy. Their relationship quickly develops, but Ben struggles to get his head around her warped idea of what true love is, What lengths will he go to in order to win her love?. The film also stars Michael Chwastiak and Joel Vliet. I just want to give a quick shout out to Darryl for contacting me about watching and reviewing his film, I really appreciate it!

THE GOOD

The estimated budget for this well-written and disturbing horror short, was around $6,000, with which Darryl gets great production value from. The technical aspects are very impressive right from the outset. The editing is really sharp, a few fade to blacks were used, but most of the scenes flow into each other smoothly. The audio levels are pretty good, the camera work and shot choices are also quite creative. The aspect that stood out most was the way in which the actors faces were framed. It’s really well placed and nothing gets cut off in the frame. Some of the shades of red for the mood lighting in Lucy’s apartment looked great, it reminded me of David Lynch’s “Wild At Heart”. Lynch is one of my favorites, so that’s a huge compliment to Darryl.

There isn’t a lot of violence in this one, but what we do get to see was all done practically and looks very realistic, considering the small budget. The blood was a consistent color, and a couple of the plot twists had me cringing, that’s a true testament to how well they were done. I don’t want to say much about the plot and ruin it for those who plan on seeing it but haven’t done so yet. Let’s just say, it’s an interesting take on the human body and how certain people perceive the meaning of a “life” itself. One of the best things about Greater Than is the very Lynchian, “Wild At Heart/ Twin Peaks” noir style score. I absolutely loved it and it helped set the mood and tone of the entire piece. I have to make mention of Adam and Dana, the two leads in the film. When you take into account the experience levels of both these actors, you really have to admire the performances and the chemistry, great work!

THE BAD

As much as I enjoyed the slick film/noir soundtrack, there was a piece of music that sounded like something Jamiroquai would have recorded, and was on a loop which got rather irritating after a short time. Nearly the entire film has background music, there could have been a few moments throughout that were given some room to breath, maybe focused on the intensity of the relationship rather than conveying it through sound. A few lines of dialogue were rather average and didn’t progress the story. The sub-plot with the guys (mobsters?), that have employed Lucy to work in a factory sowing something or rather, didn’t really fit the rest of the story. The accents of the (Russians??) were a little shaky at times too.

Most of the content you’d expect is there, though I can’t help but think given what Ben comes to understand about Lucy, why he wouldn’t be weary of the fact that she’s maybe not all there in the head (haha)?. It seemed like he went from not wanting anything to do with her, to not being able to live without her and I figured things could only end in disaster. His reaction to the first, and rather major sign of how unhinged she really is, seems rather relaxed. I know if someone gave me that kind of present I would be horrified. Yet he seems more overwhelmed at how much she is showing she cares (haha, which I guess in a crazy way she does).

Greater Than was a genuine surprise. I knew next to nothing about the film, or what kind of filmmaker Darryl was. After watching this, I’m really keen to see what he does for a full length feature. This had shades of The Soska’s “American Mary” about it, which I dug. It’s technically really well made with some wonderful film/noir lighting and music. The action is sufficient enough given the content of the story. It’s got great pacing and I was happy that it ran a little longer than most short films. The writing could have been adjusted in places and the constant music toned back a notch, giving it a little more power, which would have resulted in a near perfect film. Great job none the less!!

My rating for “Greater Than” is 7.5/10

NO REASON

THE SETUP

“No Reason” is an extreme horror film, from German director Olaf Ittenbach. It was released back in 2010, but has since been out of print. I spent a fair amount of time searching for the film online and managed to find a bootlegged copy. Ittenbach, started out as a practical effects specialist, and quickly showed interest in getting behind the camera. He has since been responsible for some of the most extreme films to come out of Germany, such as “Dard Divorce” and “The Burning Moon”. No Reason is a story of Jennifer (played by Irene Holzfurtner), and her husband Sebastian (Mathias Engel), who are planning to take their young son Nico (Dominik Buhler), and move from the crowded apartment complex they currently reside in. What starts as a normal day quickly spirals out of control. Jennifer receives a disturbing letter containing a cryptic poem, her elderly neighbor supposed to babysit Nico because the usual babysitter has mysteriously disappeared, and to top it all of Jennifer suspects her husband of cheating with the missing babysitter. She takes a bath in order to relax but she accidentally falls asleep. She awakens to a room full of mutilated bodies scattered across the floor, but she has no memory of what happened. A mysterious masked man seems to have all the answers, But what does he want from Jennifer??

THE GOOD

I liked the opening shots where we see a young mother and father playing with their daughter in the front yard. It looked like it was shot on a 16mm camera, but after seeing the film I’m not sure if there was any relevance to include that as the opening, it still looked good though. Accompanying those opening scenes is a really nice piece of piano based music. It’s a very Americanized theme that you don’t normally hear in European cinema. Given the modest budget, the film has a pretty loud and clear audio track and the camera work is decent during most of the scenes. My copy had hard-coded English subtitles and they were all synched correctly, so that was an improvement on the last German film I watched “Knochenwald” *see review*.

The acting was a mixed bag. A lot of the secondary characters didn’t get much in the way of dialogue and what they did say wasn’t all that interesting. The masked man and Jennifer are the two characters with the most amount of dialogue. A lot of what gets said centers on Jennifer’s life, and the choices that she’s made. Irene should be commended because she has to carry the emotional punch of the film all on her own and that’s a tough ask. A few of her breakdown moments seemed a little exaggerated, but other than that she was very consistent. Olaf’s great work in practical effects is on display once again. The quality of the effects are top-notch and even felt a little to real (eek). I can handle a decent dose when it comes to blood/gore and the violence that goes along with that, but even I have my limits and I think this was a bit much for me.

There is a short segment at a bondage club, where women are urinating on men, you also see a women performing oral sex on a man who then has his penis bitten off (fully shown). The level of sexual violence is quite high and may offend viewers. The violence in the “red segment” (which has a certain representation, watch the movie to find out), contains gun shots, women being repeatedly whipped in the face, a man being wrapped in plastic and beaten to death, another man having his penis cut completely down the center (it’s all very graphic and meant to be for shock value). I don’t enjoy brutal sequences that are written for shock value and have no other purpose, I don’t believe in portraying violence in that way. However, I can still acknowledge the wonderful and realistic practical effects, once again Olaf does a great job with them.

THE BAD

There are technical issues with the lighting in most of the film. A lot of the scenes in the second half are far too dark, especially during Jennifer’s conversation with the drug dealer. I think it was intentional to light each act of the film so differently. With a better script, using a different color scheme to represent the various levels of “hell” could have worked. Instead it just came off as an unnecessary gimmick. When the deaths of each person from the apartment building occur, some of the sound effects either don’t match the weapon being used or the timing is out of synch. I’ve seen that mistake made plenty of times, but I didn’t expect it from an experienced filmmaker like Ittenbach. Even with some good camera work, the film still suffers from really poor editing. During the scene where Jennifer awakens to find the bodies, we get about 25 or 30 shots in less than half a minute (yes you heard me), it was unbelievably rapid, horrendous on the eyes and totally unnecessary. At other times they tried to edit the footage with a stagnant look, almost like it was in slow motion but it wasn’t. Why do that??, It didn’t add any artistic value, nor did it elevate the scene it just came off looking like a post production goof.

The biggest problem with No Reason is the incomprehensible storyline and the structure of the details. It’s wanting to be something like “Hellraiser” meets “Memento”, in the sense of two narratives more or less going on at the same time. It doesn’t take long before you get completely confused and because it’s kind of told back to front, you can’t get back on track. I didn’t get the chance to know any of the characters other than Jennifer. I know the story revolves around her, but the issue is she’s not all that likable to begin with. The plot revelation of everyone appearing to be someone but really being someone else, only works if the characters are fleshed out properly and here they aren’t. Creating these layers of hell, minus the little puzzle box, is a plot point pulled straight from the “Hellraiser” films. The cryptic book that Jennifer reads from revolves around satanic stuff which is shown in a very surreal and confronting way. The content of the film is just too damn depressing, a very dark and ominous tone, with a lot of sick visuals all leading to the revelation that Jennifer might not be as innocent as she seems (I didn’t think she seemed it anyways but..).

I was looking forward to watching No Reason. I saw the trailer and I know the quality of Olaf’s practical effects and thought I might have been in for a bloody good time (pardon the pun). Unfortunately this is a journey into the macabre depths of hell. Much like the French film “Martyrs” this one pushes the limit, and not because it has a great story to tell, just simply because it can. With a running time of just 75 minutes it feels every bit of that, because the stuff you’re witnessing is to depraved and lacks the cohesive structure needed to tell a worthwhile or interesting story. This is for fans of only the most extreme European cinema and it’s not for me. If you want great gore and suspenseful storytelling, try Alexandre Aja’s “High Tension aka Switchblade Romance” or “Inside”.

My rating for “No Reason” is 3/10

JERSEY SHORE MASSACRE

You guessed it, “Jersey Shore Massacre” is a Horror/Comedy and parody of the reality TV show “Jersey Shore”. Producer and Director Paul Tarnopol (Girls Gone Dead) and Jennifer Farley (J wow, who was one of the cast on the show), join forces to bring us a spoof of all things JS, with a touch of slasher in the mix. A typical weekend on the shore for a group of 6 girls and 5 guidos (slang for working class urban male), takes a turn for the worse, when they become unsuspecting targets of a local psychopath. Teresa, (played by the lovely Danielle Dallacco) gets her uncle’s house in the woods so the group can party. The girls are Dina (Angelica Boccello), Joanne (Nicole Rutigliano), Valerie (Ashley Mitchell), Gigi (Christina Scaglione) and Rosemarie (Leonardo Bosch). They decide to go down to the beach before heading off. There, they meet Tony, Freddy, Vinnie, Gino and Joey. Played respectivly by Giovanni Roselli, Chris Lazzaro, Brenton Duplessie, Brett Azar and John Hastie. Now before we get started, when you hear the title you should know exactly what you’re in for. If you don’t like horribly self-centered people being killed off in gruesome and entertaining ways, you probably wont like JSM.

THE GOOD

I enjoyed the last film Paul Tarnopol worked on which was “Girls Gone Dead”. This film was made for an estimated $1.4 Million (similar to GGD). It’s the same genre, with very similar and equally as unlikable characters. Nobody is going to know these characters and their personalities better than Jennifer Farley. I assume she had a say in the casting and the tone of the film too. Her input is clearly evident when you watch this group interact with each other. I only watched bits and pieces of Jersey Shore, enough to see what type of people these guys and girls were. So when I heard about JSM my curiosity peaked. After all, how can you not like a bunch of over the top personalities coming together and meeting their demise in a really entertaining way

I think the majority of the cast are totally on the money for this entire film. From the thickest of the thick Joisy accents(see what I did there) ,to the incessant gum chewing, the forceful profanity and the dumb questions being asked and the equally dumber answers given in return, it truly has it all.  Memorable one liners such as “We don’t eat meat were veterinarians” and “She’s got that stockholder syndrome thing”, made for a few chuckles. The girls are done up in a similar fashion to the girls on the show. Plenty of makeup, short tops, dresses and skirts and of course the fake boobs to go with it (doesn’t bother me). Now, I’ve read other reviewers had a problem with that. Some even labeling these girls hideous. What part of, This is a movie and they are playing characters do you not get?. Yes, these people happen to be based on those from the show, but if you take issue with the way they look then raise it with those who were actually on the show. Angelica and Danielle are the two girls with the most screen time and both look gorgeous and give enjoyable performances. Nicole Rutigliano and Nicky Figueredo supply us with the nudity. Both look in great shape, curvaceous and confident women and there’s nothing better than that.

It goes without saying that the ladies get to perve on a pretty bulked up male cast too. Try to remember these guys probably aren’t like the morons they are portraying (haha). Giovanni and Chris are the standouts but the others do enough to keep the quality high. Chris’s hyena laugh, replicating “Pauly D” from JS is perfect. It’s a horrible laugh that will no doubt get you laughing just because it’s so lame. These are the type of guys that wear bum bags, get spray tans and have to roofy girls in order to sleep with them, basically the worst of the worst. The film doesn’t hold back from showing how horrible these guys really are and you can’t help but enjoy the inevitable deaths. Jersey Shore Massacre looks and sounds great. The camera work is a mix of Steadicam, still shots and even some crane work, it all looks nice. The Forrest and the cabin/house made for a nice location to shoot in. The soundtrack and sound effects were consistent throughout. Some of the samples used during the three locks being turned on the door, amongst other unique sounds really stood out.

The thing all slasher fans want to know is does it deliver on the carnage and not just the comedy? Yes, for the most part it does. It’s key that you start your film off with a good early kill and JSM does, almost too good (given it’s the first one). From what I could see, everything in here was done with practical effects, the consistency of the blood is great. A couple of the standout kills involved a disembowelment, along with a horrific death in the shower, one of the best I’ve seen. I don’t want to ruin any of the other cool stuff in there so I will end it here.

THE BAD

The lighting was an issue in a few of the night-time scenes. There is a fine line between using too much light when your outside or not enough to show your actors faces properly. The scenes in the shed/barn (whatever it was), were most noticeably dark. It was frustrating because a couple of the characters were being killed off at the time and I couldn’t see what was happening. Some of the editing is a little rushed, a few scenes cut back and forth between inside the house and outside it. If something relevant to the story is happening in both locations then its fine but it wasn’t. I take issue with a roofy being included in the film. I don’t know whether that’s something the Jersey Shore guys actually did or if it was incorporated to make them look worse, either way it’s disgusting. People know the deal with them and it does happen, so you don’t need to make people anymore aware of it than they already are. There is nothing that led on from that scene anyways, so it could have just been cut. I don’t need to be reminded of how low guys can stoop.

There is a lull in the middle portion of the film where the girls go on an excursion in the so-called haunted woods, not sure why?. At least 20 minutes are taken up by club scenes, girls fighting and prolonged dancing, it felt very much like filler. The story needed to consist of a rising body count or some character development instead. In this case, I don’t think anything needed developing, everyone is pretty one-dimensional so get to the killing already. Even though there is a lot of cool practical effects and a decent body count, the camera still cuts away from the good stuff. I was hoping to see some more inventive kills, I know this doesn’t have the budget of something like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, but gore lovers want to see as much as possible! The most disappointing part was a lost opportunity at a decapitation, which always gets the eyes rolling (pardon the pun haha), but they are a special effects lovers wet dream. The revelation of the killer is rather predictable so a little twist is thrown in. Unfortunately it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, nor has there been any clues eluding to it along the way. Motive and continuity aren’t clear-cut, it seems as though the killer ends up in all the right places without the audience seeing how he ever got there, it’s a little lazy in that respect.

Before I started writing this, I read the film had an average meta-critic score of 12/100. Guys seriously, it’s called “Jersey Shore Massacre” what were you expecting??. It blends the spoof on these self-indulgent, royal douchebagery people with your typical formulaic slasher, what more could you ask for?. The production value is great, the use of practical effects is always a plus and the cast absolutely nail it. If some of the writing in regards to the killer was addressed and some of the deaths were gorier and didn’t cut away, this would be the best self-aware Horror/comedy I’ve seen in a long time. I challenge you to not have fun with this when it’s got all “The Belgian whistles”, see what I did again (haha).

You also get a cool little short film starring YouTube personality Shawn C Phillips and the gorgeous Shea Stewart called “Fat Camp Massacre”.

My rating for “Jersey Shore Massacre” is 7/10

KNOCHENWALD

I recently found this out of print, bootleg version of a German Splatter film made 15 years ago called “Knochenwald”. I collect low-budget films that can be difficult to find, this one is that rare that it didn’t even come with English subtitles, it’s artwork or a case. As you can see I did find the artwork and although reminiscent of “My Bloody Valentine”, it’s still pretty cool. Knochenwald started as a 23 minute short film which led to two full length sequels, only one of which came as part of my two disc purchase. Now, before I start the review I didn’t watch the whole second disc so I am only critiquing the first part. The film is about Mike Mansfield (yes probably a nod to Mike Myers the iconic killer, not the Austin Powers star haha). Mike is a serial killer who kills random campers in the woods, and yes, that’s it. I’m a lover of Peter Jackson’s early gore based films all the way through to some of the modern Italian and Asian splatter films, such as “Adam Chaplin” and “Tokyo Gore Police”, so I usually know what I’m in for, or so I thought.

THE GOOD

Knochenwald has a pretty cool synth theme song, which sounded like it was straight out of the 80’s. Usually the Europeans go for a heavy metal based soundtrack, so it was a nice change of pace having that classic appeal. No one can deny, that given the films short running time, actor and director Utz Marius Thomsen, gives the viewer a respectable body count. I didn’t keep count but I think around 7 or 8 characters were killed, most of them being campers randomly walking around as you do (haha). I commend Thomsen on a couple of the cool practical effects like the blood sprays and one decapitation scene. Some of the prosthetics looked pretty decent considering this was made on a shoe-string budget. If I had to guess, I’d say somewhere between $500- $1,000 (don’t quote me on that), but yes you heard me correctly. Unfortunately even with this being a short film, that kind of money isn’t going to come close to cutting it. With cheap cameras and rented equipment, your chances of delivering anything worth watching are slim.

THE BAD

Firstly, I’m extremely disappointed with the fact that the film doesn’t include an option for English subtitles. I know the dialogue probably wasn’t crucial to the story or should I say lack there of, but we’ll never know. The audio levels throughout are incredibly inconsistent. Obviously there was no money to use a boom mic, so it’s just on board sound from the camera. Considering it’s all in German, I didn’t really care if I could hear the audio but that’s not the point, a German would. The editing is sloppy as hell and the framing is all wrong in most of the scenes. The whole thing screams student film project, and looking at the age of Thomsen and his buddies, I think it might have been. It’s that shot on video look where all the color is washed out and the shots look grainy. To be fair, 15 years ago technology was completely different so I can only judge it in comparison to other films of that time.

This is one of the first (and I hope), only times I’ve watched a completely plot-less movie. Most splatter/gore based films don’t have to contain much story or character development, but you can’t abandon that aspect entirely either. In the beginning, the masked killer picks up an axe and kills a random guy. Cut to a bunch of friends camping in the middle of nowhere and the killer has somehow found his way to this new location without any clear transition. The film has no continuity. Characters separate, having no reason to split up other than for the killer to target them one by one where they can’t call for help. I didn’t need to understand the dialogue to see how terrible the acting was. It was on display right from the first reaction to a killer roaming the woods, they were cringe worthy.

Now I thought maybe the effects could give the movie some redeeming value, sadly it was not to be. I get when you’re working with basically no money it can be difficult to set up decent death sequences. My opinion is that unless you can really deliver you probably shouldn’t be doing it. I applaud the effort in spilling plenty of the red stuff, which Knochenwald does. However, The blood being sprayed and some of the sound effects aren’t even in synch with the impact of the weapon hits. That’s a huge no-no, I can accept the problems that are down to budget, but those are things you have control over and should get right. You have to get them right if you want to be taken seriously. During the kills that include the use of prosthetic limb’s and people being cut in half, you can clearly see actors arms behind their backs or legs covered over by something. Everything is so obviously fake and these are gags that can’t be seen as realistic.

It’s not often I say it but Knochenwald was $20.00 I’ll never get back, and with the price of petrol these days, I could have used it! I have only reviewed the first part, I couldn’t bring myself to watch the 90 minute sequel. Horror and gore related films can be made well on a limited budget, if you have people who know what they’re doing. This was a film made by a young man whose clearly a fan of the genre. But without a crew, without a DP (director of photography) and without anyone who knew what the hell they were doing, this was doomed from the start. If you’re looking for low-budget gore and aren’t fussy on the technical flaws, look no further than Italian films “Adam Chaplin” and “Taeter City”.

My review for “Knochenwald” is 2.5/10

47 RONIN

“47 Ronin” (meaning samurai without a master), is the latest film about samurai’s and shoguns (generals) from Japanese history. The topic has been covered in films such as “The Last Samurai”, going all the way back to Asian cinema from the 30’s, through to the 50’s. With his first full length feature, director Carl Rinsch brings a fresh aesthetic appeal, along with a nicely developed back story and includes an American in the mix, one who is slowly but surely returning to form. 47 Ronin tells the story of a band of samurai looking to avenge the death of their master, who was wrongly accused of dishonoring the shogun. As a young boy, Kai (played as an adult by Keanu Reeves), was rescued and taken in by Lord Asano (Min Tanaka), the master of the city Ako. There, he was raised alongside the Samurai, but referred to as a half-breed and never truly accepted. Over time he forms a close bond with Asano’s daughter, Mika (Ko Shibasakii), Kai must lead the Ronin into battle if he hopes to save her from Lord Kira and a witch who wish to take over the city. (Respectively played by Tadanobu Asana and Rinko Kikuchi). The movie also stars Hiroyuki Sanada, Jin Akanishi, Takato Yonemoto and Hiroyuki Tagawa.

THE GOOD

The film opens with some really nice narration explaining a little bit about Kai’s (Reeves) history, as well as touching on some ancient Japanese laws. In a film of this nature, the narrated sections are clear and to the point, they help to lay the foundation for the main character. A lot of the crucial information about Kai is only revealed when it’s relevant, but most of it doesn’t become clear until the last act. The quality of the camera work and the beautiful locations are fantastic and make for some wonderful scenes. The blend between the footage shot on location and the CG enhanced backgrounds, is impressive. There were only one or two visuals that struck me as obviously fake, although they were incredibly detailed (probably why they were hard to ignore). With this quality of CG, from the lush forest and creek in the beginning of the film, to the scenes filmed by the dock or on the ships, it really helps draw the viewer into that world.

The lovely cinematography and overall shooting style transfers well to 3D. I didn’t find any moments really jumping out at me but that’s not to say the look of each location wasn’t enhanced by having it in 3D. The action gets started nice and early with a battle between Kai and a huge beast in the woods. Unfortunately it subsides for a rather long period of time during the middle portion. Most of the cast put in decent performances, but the emotional scenes don’t have that sense of urgency one would experience if in a similar situation. Reeves does enough to get by, but doesn’t seem overly enthused by the idea. Although, being one of two non-Asian actors (the other only, having just one scene), feeling out-of-place is to be expected. When the action gets started in the second half its nicely choreographed and everyone seems well-drilled, making for some fun and realistic battles.

THE BAD

I wasn’t bothered by the fact, that over the years similar stories of the 47 Ronin have been adapted for the big screen, but I suppose that has to be acknowledged. Having not seen any of the previous films I can’t say this is original in any way but I can state that It’s a modern take on that part of history and I don’t think anything else would offer these kind of visuals. The problem with using 47 as the number is that there’s definitely not 47 in this group of sullied warriors (don’t know if there was in history). They should have cast more people to fill those roles or re-named it “Ronin”. Issues arise with authenticity because the group never really feels truly outnumbered or in a real life or death situation. The whole thing needed to be constructed on a much broader spectrum. Early on much of the film focuses on a battle of power between Asano and the Shogun and should have been spent building on Kai’s character arc. The story contains the predictable forbidden love aspect, which becomes the driving force behind Kai fighting back. The fairytale stuff isn’t needed here, after all this is an action/adventure movie primarily for men.

Moreover, when lifelong enemy Oishi, head of the samurai’s who serve Asano turns to Kai for help you can go ahead and put that big tick in the cliché box. I’m sure that’s a plot point used in countless Japanese films of the same vein (haha). It annoyed me because there wasn’t even a slow build towards acceptance or respect between Kai and Oishi. The two had grown up in the same environment. Oishi had nothing but contempt for Kai and then he’s like “Hey friend, I’m kind of in a bind, can you help me out” (haha), my answer would have been hell no! *anyways moving on*. I  wanted to know more about Kai and his fighting ability, or his whereabouts as a kid before being rescued. To be fair, we do get a lot of those answers as the film progresses, but I can’t help thinking it could have been explored in the beginning instead of some of the lack-luster scenes we get. The acting falls pretty flat in the more emotional scenes but that could be due to this entire Japanese cast speaking English in a film set somewhere between the 12th and 16th century. It should have been made in Japanese for authenticity sake. These people weren’t speaking English back then so did they just do this for Keanu’s sake??. That or they were thinking it wouldn’t appeal to the masses if it was foreign, I’m not sure.

I wasn’t a fan of the witchcraft aspect of the story either. Everything else seems like it could have existed at one time or another, but dragons and magic don’t fit into something  grounding itself in reality. I know with fantasy you can take some liberties but other than poisoning one character it played no real part in the outcome of the story. The most disappointing thing about this Americanized version, is that being a movie about ancient Japanese warriors you’d expect blood right??. There isn’t any. I mean not even a drop, it’s the equivalent of making a zombie film, in a family friendly way (Yes I’m speaking about you “World War Z” *rolls eyes*), no true fan wants to see that. Kids films are for kids, if you’re going to make a Samurai film it needs to be visceral to have any real impact. Side note, don’t allude to an awesome tattooed looking pirate if you’re not going to use him in more than one scene, that was very disappointing.

I feel like people decided they were going to hate 47 Ronin before they even saw it. This isn’t perfect by any means but it’s nowhere near as bad as some have led you to believe. The visuals are wonderfully striking, the time period has been re-created seamlessly and the action we do get to see is pretty entertaining. If they shot this with Japanese dialogue, edited some of the familiar tropes in order to include more story and let loose on the blood, this could have been great. Instead it’s just a solid film about Samurai’s that’s not overly memorable. I’m not well schooled in Japanese cinema or the genre so I don’t know how it stacks up against its predecessors, but I still enjoyed it regardless.

My rating for “47 Ronin” is 6/10

OUT OF THE FURNACE

“Out Of The Furnace” is the latest film from director Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart). Set on location, in the small town of Braddock, PA during the economic downfall, the story follows Rodney and Russell Baze (played by elite actors Casey Affleck and Christian Bale). When Rodney (Affleck), mysteriously disappears and law enforcement fail to take action, Russell takes justice into his own hands. This bleak and gritty Crime/Drama weaves a storyline of lost love, the bond between brothers and the seeking of forgiveness. The film boasts an unbelievable cast including Willem Dafoe, Woody Harrelson, Zoe Saldana, Forest Whitaker and Sam Shepard. I watched the film over a year ago when it was first released and remember thinking it was well made but rather depressing. After a second viewing I still agree with the latter but my opinion of the storytelling has changed.

THE GOOD

This is the epitome of an ensemble cast, there isn’t anyone stealing the film from anybody else. If there were any weak links with a cast this talented it would be obvious. There are countless intense, gripping scenes throughout the film. The bond between brothers Russell and Rodney is subtle, the feelings are conveyed through eye contact and the emotional weight each of them seems to carry. They are very different, and chose different paths in life but the relationship is show in an honest and believable way. The past isn’t covered and only referenced once in order to capture some poetic justice of sorts. Christian has proven to be a force over the years and once again his reserved and anguished manner works like a charm here. If you didn’t see Casey in the same light as his brother Ben, there’s little doubt you won’t now. The scenes he shares with Dafoe are so passionate and genuine. Dafoe plays John Petty, the owner of a local bar, who uses Rodney’s talent in bare knuckle boxing as a way to pay back a debt he owes to ruthless Harlan DeGroat (Harrelson). Dafoe and Harrelson are amongst some of the best character actors in Hollywood and they show why here.

Woody plays Harlan with such an aggression but at the same time a certain poise when conducting his business deals, none of which is good. He cooks and sells drugs, he gambles and he runs a bare knuckles fight club in the mountains. Tom on the other hand isn’t a bad guy, much like Rodney he’s just gotten mixed up with the wrong people. I think the two have a friendship because Tom can see Rodney got dealt a shitty hand and for whatever reason becomes a father figure to him. Rodney has returned from two tours of Iraq only to find himself feeling broken and lost. He’s experienced some horrible things and is struggling to find exactly where he fits in society. His storyline in part, is a social commentary on the lack of help for soldiers returning home as well as an insight into how military personnel are treated by the government. On the other hand, his brother Russell (Bale), is trying to live life with a certain moral code, in the hopes of getting back his one true love Lena (played by Zoe Saldana). Every character is so well conceived, it’s such a multi faceted film covering topics like love, loss and redemption. Rodney and Russell’s scenes are amongst the best, but you can’t look past the emotional scenes shared by Russell and Lena surrounding their rocky relationship. A bond between the two made more complicated by Lena’s new partner Wesley Barnes (Whitaker).

The film is shot with such purpose and intensity, elevating the level of all the performances and how much you can relate to these characters. The panning is smooth and the editing perfect. Even when the focus is on establishing shots between scenes, it looks great and gives off a tone that coincides with each moment. From the wooded mountains, to the industrial saw mill, to the vacant shop fronts and the tired old houses, it’s an authentic depiction of middle America during an economic crisis. The orchestral score is very subtle, often only a few notes being mixed with industrial sound effects to give off a haunting vibe. The attention to detail is evident in every frame. Nothing polished or new appears in the frame, it’s all worn down and therefore the characters look worn down. Casey sports a dirty doing it tough look, as does Christian with his long hair and messy beard. Willem looks greasy, like a bad takeaway dinner and Woody looks a rough brute.

THE BAD

Out Of The Furnace has been accused of being bleak, slow and void of oxygen. I have to admit I thought the same thing the first time I watched it. Upon a second viewing, you start to look a little deeper and I think you’ll find the intention was  to make a bleak and harsh film depicting these people and their tragic lives and that’s the whole point. At times it feels rather slow but life in the town is slow, so it’s actually realistic. Due to some of the thick accents, the dialogue can be a little difficult to understand but most of its fine. My small issues are with minor events in the screenplay or the opportunity to write scenes that weren’t included.

In the beginning of the film it’s established that Rodney and Russell’s father is sick. It was a plot point that came to an end without a beginning. I would have enjoyed another couple of scenes showing the bond their father had with them in order to substantiate a family connection right off the bat. After the climax of the first act, it would have been helpful to know how much time had passed in Russell’s life. A scene set in a courtroom would have been the clear choice to help segue into the scenes that follow. That whole part of the script was written really well and I didn’t see it coming, so I can’t take huge issue with it. Another point to make would have been to include a letter written by Lena to Russell, rather than having Rodney disclose events through conversation with him. If he was at war for that period of time, how would have even known what was happening in her life?? Because it was such a personal situation, it needed a personal touch and not a secondhand source relaying it.

The hunting scene between Russell and his Uncle, (Sam Shepard) didn’t serve much of a purpose. I know he needs to be acknowledged as events are playing out with Rodney and Tom in the mountains, but he could have just been at home. Unless showing Russell’s inability to pull the trigger after slowly creeping up on a deer was a sign of things to come, who knows?. The final act lacked a bit of suspense and felt a little flat. After all, the despicable things that occur throughout the film deserved a much more brutal reaction and finale. In hindsight, I suppose the manner in which it plays out gives the audience a little poetic justice, so that’s something.

Out Of The Furnace is a true masterclass of acting, and reason enough alone to watch it. It’s beautifully shot, tense and gripping with every character being unique and interesting in their own way. If not for a few minor missed details and some dead ends this would be one of the best films from 2013. I experienced a multitude of emotions while watching this but awareness is an aspect from it that you walk away with. It’s a tragic story about the violence of men and the path you choose isn’t always the right one but that’s just life. It’s not always pretty, all doesn’t end happily ever after and sometimes life’s just hard.

My rating for “Out Of The Furnace” is 7.5/10

EDDIE, THE SLEEPWALKING CANNIBAL

“Eddie The Sleepwalking Cannibal” or in short “Eddie”, is a Danish/Canadian made Horror/Comedy from director Boris Rodriguez (no relation to filmmaker Robert Rodriguez). Lars Olafssen (played by Thure Lindhardt), was once a world renown painter whose inspiration dried up years ago. He relocates to a small Canadian town, after accepting a teaching positioning at the struggling local art school. There, he meets Eddie (Dylan Smith), a docile and mute man with a rare sleepwalking disorder. Eddie’s violent tendencies become a sort of muse for Lars, as he tries to get his career back on track. The film also stars Georgina Reilly, Stephen McHattie and Paul Braunstein. I was scrolling through films on Imdb (International movie data base), when I happened across this film. I’m quite partial to a good horror comedy and after seeing this it’s a real shame that more people haven’t heard of it.

THE GOOD

This is such a fun, unique concept for a film. The content within it, can be horrific at times but the writers never lose track of the core story. What inspires us? How are we able to do our best work?. This of course, is a much darker look at things that can inspire. These characters are so well fleshed out and really likable, which is very rare in a film of this nature. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen one structured like this. Lars has a very calm temperament and a genuine passion for art and people, yet he harbors some disturbing obsession for the macabre. He shows compassion when he agrees to let Eddie stay with him. Eventually there is an ulterior motive, but in the beginning it’s more a concern for his well-being. Lesley (Reilly), is another art teacher who seems a little overwhelmed and slightly pissed off that Lars has come to the school. She has her own reasons for feeling a slight animosity towards him, which are divulged when the two get to know each other. Alain Goulem who plays Harry, the local sheriff was a blast to watch. He didn’t have a real big part but managed to display some great comedic timing. The story was very interesting because even though what’s taking place is extremely disturbing, the community is thriving off of having Lars in it. Any success that he has, seems everyone benefits from. The school begins to get much-needed funding, Eddie doesn’t end up in a facility, everyone seems happy.

I knew from the opening scene, which I won’t spoil, (Think the cow scene from “Me Myself And Irene), that I had stumbled across something special. The style of black comedy and awkwardness between certain characters, is on point for the entire 80 minutes. A lot of why this works so well is down to the mostly Canadian cast, that show they can perform as well as the Americans can. After having seen the film I can’t imagine Lars being played by anyone else other than Thure, and that’s the sign of a great film. This only had a budget of 1.5 million but you wouldn’t pick it. With a wonderful production value enhanced by the heavily wooded, snow-covered location, is it any wonder it looks more expensive. The cinematography and camera work is fantastic and the editing has been so well-timed. The audio difference from dialogue to sound effects was perfectly mixed. Rounding it out were the cool and realistic practical blood and gore effects and the score.

Despite the artwork for the film, it’s not as bloody as one would think but that’s not a bad thing. They may have miss marketed the film as it plays out like a black comedy and not a horror which you may have been led to believe. The blood and gore effects we do get to see are really professionally done. A few solid prosthetic limbs were used, and a few gnarly action scenes made for some fun kills. I only wish that the off-screen kill (one in particular, if you have seen it you know), was shown in full because that would have looked gruesome. The score reminded me of a Coen Brothers film, like “Fargo” (which is one of my favorites), crossed with a classic Tim Burton film (Beetlejuice). A nice blend of cello and violin mixed with a lot of bass effects and well placed throughout.

THE BAD

Through most of the movie it’s very difficult to find fault. Assuming you can take the concept for what it is, you’ll find it hard to knit pick. Most of my quibbles were minor, for instance, the opera music was painful on the ears. I can forgive it some-what because of the comedic narrative within those scenes where its playing. A few scenes were unnecessarily incorporated to extend the running time and could have been replaced with a couple of missed connections. Charles, one of the faculty from the art school lives next door to Lars. He isn’t ever introduced to Lars, until his dog’s incessant barking becomes a thorn in Lars side. Immediately he knows Lars is working at the school and say’s he saw him. I suppose it’s a small town, but that’s my point. The fact the two never crossed paths again after that seemed unlikely. There was an opportunity to place Charles at the school so we believed this community was tight-knit. Then after the unexpected disappearance there’s no real inquiry as to his whereabouts and everyone just assumes he up and left.

The film is rather predictable if you know the basis of the story, though in this case it doesn’t put a damper on the overall entertainment value. I liked the brief back story on Eddie, who by the way, doesn’t utter a word during the whole film. A true credit to Dylan Smith who you are bound to feel for from being used one way or another. My only hope was that a reason would eventuate for why these acts of violence aided in inspiring Lars to paint some of his best work. I suppose that’s for the audience to decide.

Eddie The Sleepwalking Cannibal is a true hidden gem. It’s a travesty more people haven’t seen this film, It’s technically brilliant and meticulously crafted. The story is layered and it contains some very memorable characters with interesting personalities. The effects looked great and the performances impressive. This is the best horror/comedy since “100 Bloody Acres” *see review* (equally as unknown), so go ahead and pick up a copy of both of the films. Eddie is brilliant.

My rating for “Eddie” is 8/10

UNBROKEN

“Unbroken” is the second film directed by Angelina Jolie, who recently stated she preferred to be behind the camera and was looking at a career in directing. I didn’t see her directorial debut, “In The Land Of Blood And Honey” which apparently flopped. So when her name was attached to Unbroken, a true story about Olympic runner Louis Zamperini, I didn’t pay it much thought. With a screenplay written by Joel and Ethan Coen (“Fargo” and “No Country For Old Men”), “Unbroken” follows Louis’s journey from becoming an Olympic athlete to his unit’s plane being shot down in WWII. He spent 47 days in a raft with two other men, eventually leading to his capture by the Japanese where he was taken to a prisoner camp. The film stars Jack O’Connell (Eden Lake and TV’s “Skins”), along with Domhnall Gleeson, Garrett Hedlund, Luke Treadaway and Takamasa Ishihara.

THE GOOD

Angelina took a different route to what people were probably thinking when she chose to cast Jack O’Connell as Zamperini. Having an English actor play a well-known American/Italian sporting legend could have been a risky decision. Obviously Jack has a fair amount of experience, having been acting for ten years but a key role like this is a big challenge. I know several of the up and coming talents were in talks for the role but I’m glad it went to O’Connell. The young boy chosen to play Louis in the flashback scenes was also incredibly well cast. The transition from the younger actor to Jack early on in the film was very fluent and believable. The supporting cast are very good too, but it’s Jack’s show right from the start. He plays it with such emotional reservation but deep down encompasses the fighting spirit instilled in Louis by his older brother Pete. Jack appears in nearly every scene of this 137 minute film, the success and authenticity of it rests solely on his shoulders. I haven’t seen a performance from Jack quite like this and it’s great to see him maturing into a really talented actor.

The period of the 1940’s is re-created very realistically. I read the entire film was shot in New South Wales. Obviously there’s some CG when required, but the locations themselves make for some lovely cinematography. The editing and transition between scenes is nice and smooth and some of the shots on the ocean during that 47 day period are wonderful. The beginning of the film drops the viewer straight into the fight, where Louis and his men are flying into enemy territory to bomb the Japanese. Surprisingly there is very little action after that first fifteen or twenty minutes. Unbroken it’s more of a psychological drama about the cruelty of war and it’s effects on the human psyche. However, the opening scene is of a dog fight with some great visuals including a realistic plane crash into the ocean.

I sympathized with Louis but I wasn’t completely drawn in to the journey, I still felt like an outsider even when I was watching the horrible acts being thrust upon him. Not to say Jack isn’t more than convincing in the role. My issue is with the breaking point that we all have, its never truly tested or if it is it’s not depicted in a powerful enough way to quite pull you in. Obviously Louis has a will to survive driven by his brothers words “If I can take it, I can make it”. I have no doubt those words were the reason he survived the entire ordeal. Regardless of his eventual belief in god, it was he who chose not to lose his mind or give up, that is a strength you either have or you don’t, god has nothing to do with that.

THE BAD

The flashbacks don’t serve much of a purpose other than showing what a talented runner Louis was. I think the better inclusion would have been the relationship with his family, which could have been shown through those flashbacks. The situation doesn’t get anymore dire than during the 47 days, he and two others spend floating in the ocean on a life raft with minimal food and water. Those are the moments you would need to draw on experiences in your life, the love you have for others and the love they have for you might just be enough to pull you through. Instead, the film lingers during that 30 minutes consisting of a cooking conversation, a punctured raft being patched (with what??) and the beating and killing of a shark. I’m guessing the trio didn’t really hold a shark down and beat it/stab it to death, that it’s just the Coen’s taking some theatrical license with the writing. If it did happen I apologize and I’m very impressed (haha).

That period of 6 weeks spent on the raft doesn’t seem to  alter the look of our three survivors. Sure, Jack looks like he grew some modest bum fluff but I’d think after that long you’d be sporting a homeless style beard. More attention to detail in the middle segment would have given the script a touch more realism. I’m sure the book, which this is based on, incorporated more about how Louis came to fight in the war, especially after having such a promising athletic career. The movie doesn’t even gloss over it. It wouldn’t have been difficult to find out what happened in that part of Louis’s life. Some of the shorter scenes weren’t crucial but made final cut, at the expense of the extra details.

Unbroken is a competently made film with some very solid performances. The cinematography is lovely and the basic story depicting the survival instinct in humans is well displayed. Having seen “Rescue Dawn” and “To End All Wars”, two other films that portray similar survival stories, Unbroken hardly offers a fresh perspective. The running time is a bit long and a few too many liberties are taken. It’s a solid film but somewhere within lacks the X factor required to elevate its standing. No denying Angelina has an eye for talent and Unbroken remains one of the better films of the year.

My rating for “Unbroken” is 7/10

BIRDMAN

All the buzz from 2014 was surrounding Alejandro Inarritu’s critically acclaimed “Birdman” starring Michael Keaton. The story centers on washed up actor Riggan Thomas (Keaton), who once played an iconic superhero but has since been forgotten. Riggan is mounting a Broadway play in which he plays lead character hoping it will please the masses in a bid to reclaim his past glory. Riggan has cast the lovely and talented Lesley (Naomi Watts), in the leading role along with the popular and experienced Mike Shiner (Edward Norton). The combination of balancing a very egotistical group of actors, himself included and the strained relationship with his ex-wife and their daughter Sam (played by Emma Stone) proves difficult. Will it all be too much for Riggan before opening night?.

This type of screenplay reminds me of something that Charlie Kauffman would write. “Adaptation” and “Synecdoche, New York” are different but both about personal success in the same way Birdman is. These theater productions often make for an interesting perspective but can become a little bland. I wasn’t sure this would be my type of film and honestly I’m still not sure if it is.

THE GOOD

The casting for this film was key. It’s great to see Michael Keaton in a lead role, especially after his lack of those in recent time. I think the writers only begin to scratch the surface of Riggan but Keaton does a solid job. Every event in Riggan’s life seems more like a crisis to which he sporadically flips out over. He’s a man who will stop at nothing to get back what he’s lost. Emma Stone portrays one of the only likable characters and this is some of her best work. Her scenes with Keaton, along with the several she has with Edward Norton are gripping. She draws on a particular feeling with absolute ease and not many young actresses can do that. Naomi doesn’t have a real crucial part to play but she supports the rest of the cast nicely and has one or two memorable scenes. The biggest thing about Birdman is Edward Norton’s return to the fold. Jake is such an egotistical and pretentious method actor who only knows himself on stage and refuses to peel back the layers and find out who he really is. Norton took a break from key roles in bigger films for quite a while, but hopefully this one sets up plenty more great performances in the future.

I don’t think I have ever seen a film shot in this fashion before. It’s almost as though its one continuous take, where the camera follows Riggan’s entire journey as he’s living it. The shot will follow one character down a hall way and suddenly veer off into a secondary conversation between two other characters. It was a very interesting style to shoot in and it worked for the most part. However, there was room for a few more conventional camera angles when the film gets into more emotionally heavy dialogue. The constant inner monologue Riggan has with himself is due to self-doubt, which is then projected outward and manifests itself in the form of birdman. It allows Riggan that feeling of power, which he uses to move things around the room and fly, among other things. I liked the narration from Keaton but some of the surreal aspects lost me, I don’t think the superhero stuff was crucial, he could have been a star of anything.

Riggan is clearly playing a character within the play that parallels his own in life. The missed opportunities to connect with his daughter, his determination to get back what he’s lost, just like the character in the play wants his love back. It’s clear why Riggan is always at odds with himself, he can’t deal with the fear of falling into the cracks or becoming just another nobody so he neglects those who love him in order to succeed as an individual. Actors probably have a difficult time separating fantasy from reality especially the really good ones who immerse themselves in the role so that was a nice touch.

THE BAD

Although the shooting style is unique and works well to keep the feeling of one man’s struggle, gets a little tedious and the novelty wears off after a while. A few still shots and regular framing could have given it another dynamic. It’s not often that an entire score gets distracting but here it does. A few pieces of music worked nicely but the overbearing and repetitious jazz drumming, which often drowned out the dialogue, got old fast. The subject matter being what it was didn’t have to be scored at all and would have made it much more cohesive. The surrealism in a few of Riggan’s fantasies got a bit silly for me. The superhero trilogy that gave Riggan his initial fame was just a way of saying something about Hollywood films and your average movie goer these days.

The mass-produced comic book style of film sells. Anything with fast cars, shootouts or superhero’s is what your average Joe wants these days. Unless you have something new and not so obvious to say about it than it speaks for itself. This was marketed as some what of a Black Comedy, if that’s the case I think it missed the mark by a long shot. I didn’t even chuckle once during this. Am I supposed to laugh at a guy who gets rough with a woman or becomes drunk and belligerent? I tried to ignore some of the crass dialogue and attempt at humor. Instead, I took it as a character study of a very self-absorbed man trying to find his glory. It plays as a straight drama but the problem when the comedy aspect is absent, is that you need to find a way to delve deeper into the drama and Birdman doesn’t. The problem lies with all these truly self-indulgent characters none of which you really care about.

They may have interesting personalities, like Jake for example. But they are never explored. Why does he have such a hard time finding his true self in the outside world?. Does he have issues with a sex life? Does he have a drug addiction?. He treats the women in his life poorly, he puts down Riggan’s work and he holds himself way above others when it comes to his craft. Lesley’s life goal was to make it on Broadway and with getting the lead in Riggan’s production you could say she made it. Therefore her character arc is complete, unless there’s more we don’t know?. I can forgive the others because they are passengers in another mans journey. Riggan is the most difficult to have sympathy for because he just continues to miss the point of life. Yes, we all fear that we won’t be remembered if we don’t do something important with our lives or make a difference in somebody elses. I guarantee you though if you neglect those people who care about you that will be your biggest regret. After all, it’s the people in your life that give it purpose and meaning otherwise you’re just surviving. Do we need a movie to tell us that?.

Birdman’s story isn’t a new or profound one and similar notions have been explored in other films. What I enjoyed most about this was the casting and the performances. It was great to see impressive scenes like the ones Edward and Emma shared. The shooting style was cool and the dialogue, mostly entertaining and fast. Unfortunately, I feel like Birdman only begins to scratch the surface of the characters and the world. What is Alejandro trying to say about any of it? All I could take away from this was that you should stay true to yourself, don’t sell out, don’t look for commercial success and aim for a more personal success. Whatever that is for you. I see plenty of merit in Birdman. I think it’s well made but it glosses over far too many of its hidden messages and fails to provide any real answers. Not even close to the best film of the year.

My rating for “Birdman” is 6/10

WHIPLASH

“Whiplash” made quite an impression amongst film critics and festival goers when it was released late last year. This is the second music related film from young director Damien Chazelle, who himself, is a drummer and I’m guessing that’s where the inspiration for the film came from. Whiplash is about a promising young drummer whose studying at an elite conservatory where his dream of becoming one of the world’s best players is tested by a ruthless and demanding instructor. The teacher will stop at nothing to help students reach their full potential. The story focuses on Andrew (played by Miles Teller), who comes from a family of underachievers. He has the raw ability but not the polish required to be truly great and quickly learns through Fletcher (J.K Simmons) that his dream won’t come easy. The film also stars Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist and Austin Stowell.

THE GOOD

Films like “Once” and “August Rush” have covered the topic of gifted musicians but not in the same way that Whiplash does. This is a little different because it doesn’t have sub-plots like the aforementioned. It’s a film primarily about drumming. The narrative is very clear from the outset, this is a teacher/student relationship between Andrew and Fletcher. It’s about hard work and the determination that’s required for you to be the best. I’ve seen Miles Teller in a few films but his wonderful performance as a guilt ridden teen, in the film “Rabbit Hole” was a stand out. He’s played the drums for most of his life and this was a definite vehicle for him to showcase that talent. It’s rare enough that a person excel in one thing, but two, that’s just showing off (haha). I read about what Miles did in preparation for the role, the hours and hours or practice. He really wanted to tackle the challenge head on and that’s obvious in his great performance.

It’s really Simmons that steals the show though. Fletcher projects such an ugly persona that you really don’t know what to make of him. You question how he ever became a teacher in the first place. Brazen and Crass at times but seemingly with the best intentions of raising the bar for his students. I was really happy J.K was cast in the film because he’s been a very solid actor over a long period of time. He hasn’t had the chance to show that talent quite like he does here. It’s a richly shot film with a lot of great editing. During scenes with the band rehearsing you see a lot of what Miles is doing on the kit. When the focus isn’t on him but rather the intensity of Fletcher, the camera is right there gauging that fragile temper. The unique editing of the band preparing their instruments and the precision in which they do it, makes for an interesting cut. To top it off you know with a film like this you’re going to get some great jazz music and you most certainly do.

I’m not a huge fan of this genre of music but you really get into the intricacies of the time signatures in which it’s played. If you’re a musician like me, you will appreciate how difficult it can be. If you’re not, than this is a first hand look at what goes into it. Some viewers may not like the un-conventional style in which the film begins. You’re opening act normally consists of introducing a character, quite substantially doing so and setting the tone for the rest of the film. We find out who this story is about quickly enough, but interestingly without a clear-cut introduction to when or where this is set. The viewer picks up part way through Mile’s journey, who knows how far he has come or how much further he has to go. I thought it was a nice touch to see a movie start in this manner. It centers mostly around dialogue between Fletcher and Andrew and or the other members of the symphony. There is no action and the screenplay avoids most of the regular tropes you might be likely to see in a film like this. The music scenes are a plenty but it’s really the ongoing battle between the two leads that keeps you engaged. When you have two great actors and some really good material it can breathe new life into a scene.

THE BAD

Some will be disappointed that Whiplash doesn’t reach any deeper for a conclusion or solitary reason as to why Fletcher is the way he is. Is it just his personality? Or does he just aim to get the best out of people by any means necessary?. Andrew’s family was irrelevant to the story other than becoming a bit of fodder for Fletcher to fire his way. The father projects very little personality and I couldn’t make out who the others at the dinner table scene were. It’s not important it’s just that one scene of dialogue, I guess to show how under valued Andrew was amongst family and friends (if that’s who they were). There are no sub-plots, so if you aren’t interested in drumming or one of the lead actors you might feel a little underwhelmed. The relationship and dynamic between Nicole, a girl who works at the local movie theater and Andrew didn’t amount too much. The writing needed to consist of a couple more scenes involving the two. In the beginning, it didn’t seem like things were serious between them, yet when Andrew has to make a tough call he receives a very emotional response from Nicole. Apparently they had a certain connection but the audience is unaware of it because they don’t share enough screen time  .

Moreover, hinting that something may happen with Nicole and Andrew at the climax of the film is just misleading. By referencing a joke similar to one earlier on in the film you’re led into believing there might be a reconciliation and there’s not. I like my character development but I’m not saying its necessary in every film. However, an idea that only explores one aspect can become a little bland without more of a background. I was interested in Whiplash and it worked for me though it wouldn’t have hurt to include some references to the past. The profanity is rather excessive but forgivable in the context of the story. Though after Fletcher’s 14th rant and constant insults you’d think somebody would have tried putting him in his place but nobody ever does. His insults made for some good black comedy but didn’t allow you to really care about him. There is only one or two scenes showing a slightly lukewarm side, of an otherwise demeaning and ruthless Fletcher.

Whiplash is a very well made film. It’s not for everybody though and some won’t take much interest in the musical aspect. Fortunately, the emotional responses and the drive that it takes to succeed is something most of us can relate too. Teller and Simmons are a wonderful duo who deliver powerhouse performances and the music is wonderful. “There are no two words more harmful in the English language than good job” and therefore I won’t close with that, instead I say Well done!

My rating for “Whiplash” is 7.5/10

STALLED

“Stalled” is a recent Christmas themed zombie/comedy in a wave of these style of films since “Shaun Of The Dead”. With Director, Christian James at the helm and Writer, Dan Palmer playing the lead character of W.C you can tell this was by fans for fans. I feel like this is a film not many people heard about other than those keeping an eye out on the film festival circuits. W.C is a janitor in a regular office building living a pretty mundane existence, that is until he gets trapped in a women’s restroom during a zombie outbreak on Christmas eve. He must use everything and anything at his disposal to survive if he’s any chance of getting his life back on track. The film also stars Antonia Bernath, Mark Holden and Victoria Broom. I will be the first to admit I’m not the easiest guy to please when it comes to zombie films. I prefer mine serious and most of what I’ve seen in the comedy element of them just never seems to work. The fact Dan wrote the screenplay and plays the lead character works in favor of the film. After all, no one is going to know the material better than the guy who wrote it.

THE GOOD

The zombie apocalypse has been covered more than any other sub-genre of horror in recent times. It’s hard to write aspects that haven’t been done before. But having the confidence to set your film all in one location, that location being a restroom takes a lot of guts. The budget is a modest one yet somehow this all seems to comes together. The camera work and shot choices are incredibly diverse given that 90 percent of what we see is either in the toilet cubicle or just outside it. You will get a two or three-minute scene and within that scene there will be 20 different shots all within a square metre, it’s really fresh to watch a film like that. The crew really makes the most of the one location. The audio is really good and the lighting is fantastic. The color scheme of the entire film blends whites, greys and blues and really works well under the light.

From a character point of view there’s enough back story on our main man without the zombie stuff becoming secondary. When Heather (Bernath) enters the fold, it brings a more human element within the subject of dying and regrets or things you wish you could change, I liked that. This film plain and simply wouldn’t work if Dan’s performance wasn’t solid. Thankfully he wrote the material and showcases how well he knows it delivering a natural performance. I enjoyed a lot of the little, not so obvious clever and witty remarks. The puns are very English (that’s a good thing) and one line had me laughing as hard as anything. The action gets started nice and early which is always a positive thing. It’s all practical blood and gore and though it’s not copious amounts, it should be enough to satisfy most fans of the genre. I don’t want to spoil a few of the standout deaths but I’m just going to say any kill involving a toilet seat should impress those who admire the use of unique objects for killing zombies.

THE BAD

The dialogue and a few unwanted scenes were the only things that felt out-of-place in Stalled and didn’t add much in the way of entertainment . It’s all personal, but in my opinion the core of a joke might start out funny but when taken to ridiculous lengths quickly becomes tiresome and in the case of a few jokes here, childish and crass. A couple of the passages of banter between Heather and W.C from stall to stall seemed like unnecessary filler and weren’t that funny, just aimed to push the boundaries of political correctness. A definite overuse of profanity, which I admit in a few cases aided in the humor, for the most part felt like a teenage conversation. The situation with his phone was a bit far-fetched as well. I know Dan was probably just trying to incorporate a scene where he would attempt to get in contact with someone from the outside world. Ultimately though, that scene went nowhere and probably should have been cut in order to stop audience members questioning the odds of the phone actually working at that point. The dance montage after William decides to take a trip (so to speak), was really out of left field. I’ve never been a fan of scenes like that, I think they are far to stupid to ever be funny.

Most of the zombies look pretty cool, especially the ones that get close up shots or are more prevalent in the action sequences. The secondaries/extras didn’t have the same attention to detail in their makeup as the core zombies did. When you’re going for consistency you want to put that same amount of time and detail into everyone in the shot. Especially when the film only consists of about 15 or so actors. As much as I enjoyed the action and the blood and gore it didn’t feel like enough. Other than an unsuspecting zombie getting a toolbox in the face the finale left me wanting. This could have gone all out in the last scenes. Maybe a fight scene using stationary equipment as he attempts to escape the building could have supplied the audience with carnage only ever seen in a Peter Jackson splatter film. Like I said, nothing wrong with the action we get but I’ve always been a fan of the more the better.

Stalled was a genuine hidden gem amongst the zombie/comedy genre. I purchased the Blu-ray not expecting it to deliver on entertainment as much as it did. Give me this any day over the self-aware look at me likes of “Zombieland” or “Shaun Of The Dead”. I find the Brits are making better zombie films than anyone else these days. Stalled is proof. It’s exceptionally shot, paced nicely with good lead performances, jokes a plenty and lots of fun gore. I think it’s one of the best zombie films we’ve seen in a long time and you should just “Grab your bra, pull your finger out” and get out of here and buy it! haha.

My rating for “Stalled” is 7/10

THE GUEST

“The Guest” is the highly anticipated new film from director Adam Wingard (You’re Next) and best friend/writer Simon Barrett. Although The Guest didn’t have the three-year viral build up and promotion that “You’re Next” had, it was still followed intently by most through the independent film festival circuit in which it had a very successful run. The Guest is about David (Dan Stevens), a solider that introduces himself to the Peterson family claiming he knew and fought with their recently deceased son and brother. David is welcomed into the home by parents Laura and Spencer, where he befriends their son Luke (Brendan Meyer) and daughter Anna (played by the gorgeous Maika Monroe). Things become increasingly odd when accidents start happening to people in each of the family members lives. The film also stars Sheila Kelley, Leland Orser, Lance Reddick and Joel David Moore.

Adam has earnt himself quiet a reputation amongst actors and other filmmakers for his body of work thus far. Drawing some really good talent into this film proves he is definitely going places. You’re Next is one of the best home invasion slasher films and with the success of that film, Does this one live up to the expectation?, Let’s see how The Guest fares.

THE GOOD

Wingard and Barrett as a team, work a constant back and forth when writing characters and whatever screenplay they happen to be working on. Regardless of if you like their films or not you have to admire the effort these guys put in considering they are not working with huge budgets and always doing the hard yards. The camera work in The Guest is awesome, things always seem shot from David’s point of view without actually using POV shots. It’s really clever, we get a lot of close shots framing his face and the focus is on his intensity, really shaping the tone of the entire film. Lovely Steadicam shots are used and the overall color grading of the film is outstanding. The colors are so rich and bring the environment to life especially in the last act. The school auditorium colors and lighting look as gorgeous as anything in Nicholas Refn’s “Only God Forgives” and I dug that. That final sequence had the best scenes.

Let’s talk about Dan Stevens for a minute. I’ve never seen an episode of “Downton Abbey” so I can’t judge him based on that. I did however see him in “A Walk Among The Tombstones”, an incredibly dull film in which he was the surprise packet. A dead ringer for actor Cam Gigandet, Dan owns this role from start to finish. He is so calm, controlled and charismatic, yet something simmers under the surface of that warm exterior and you’re just waiting for him to blow up. His intensity in this is every bit as good as Jake Gyllenhaal in “Nightcrawler”, you just don’t hear about it. I thought both Brendan and Maika were really solid too. Maika looked lovely and she had a real sass about her that made Anna really likeable. Part rebel, part emo with a little hipster but a great character that you want to root for. The rest of the cast do their part but the only real stand out moment was Sheila in a few more of her emotional scenes, which grounded an otherwise annoying character. Her voice got on my nerves, it wasn’t anything she did just the way she spoke.

I’m leaving the best until last and the best of The Guest (pardon the rhyme haha) is most definitely the soundtrack, which must have been inspired by some of Refn’s work (Drive and Only God Forgives). This is hands down the best electro score and soundtrack I have heard in the last 10 years (minus the aforementioned films). It really set up the crime/slasher aspect of the film, it’s not something you can pass of as original but more a nod to the era this type of sound started in. The compounding intensity of the sound effect volume really elevated it.

THE BAD

There is a lot of great stuff about The Guest, hence why it has been labelled one of the best films of the year, sadly I can’t agree with that assessment though. I already mentioned the grating mother of the family who will get on your nerves pretty quickly. Her character really wasn’t explored, I’m guessing the reason for that was that she was busy drowning in her sorrows over her deceased son and that was enough. Father, Spencer had no bearing on anything that really happened either. He didn’t seem torn up about the death of his son but more interested in beating out a competitor for a promotion at work. He changes his tune very quickly from the mindset of wanting nothing to do with David and having some reservations about letting him into their lives than no sooner defend him when arguments ensue between him and Anna. Bonding over beers but there was no evidence to give us an idea of why he changed his mind so suddenly. Were we supposed to believe David had something to do with his promotion??, if he did it’s news to me and Spencer wouldn’t know that.

The fact that the family accepts him right off the bat and who he says he is and how he knew their son seems like a stretch. If this was the guy that was there when you’re son died, you would want to know what he last said, what he was thinking, you would want as much information as possible. David gives some typical response like “he said he loved you all”. That doesn’t prove a damn thing. You would be asking questions to see if this guy really knew who your son was, especially in this day and age. They didn’t need to be specific but the fact remains, not a single person inquired about the son and that’s just not realistic. The script has the usual trappings, daughter becomes weary of David’s behavior and starts to think maybe he isn’t who he says he is so the investigating starts and was  actually done pretty well and quiet subtle. What was not subtle was Luke telling David about Anna’s suspicions of him, I mean (duh). I understand at that point Luke felt like the two had a friendship, but it’s not like he hadn’t been a little taken a back by some of David’s reactions to little things. What did he possibly have to gain from telling him?, it made zero sense.

The Guest’s biggest issue is that you know without a doubt from the opening frame this guy isn’t who he says he is, and therefore it’s going to hurt the potential for layers within the film. Mystery is key in something like this, otherwise there is nothing to separate it from the countless other by the book thrillers being released every year. Not only is it predictable but making matters worse is the reasoning for David’s strange behavior. I don’t want to spoil it but I feel like I should. Let’s just say it’s kind of a cop-out and a very convenient explanation for his strange psyche. We are never privy to an existential struggle nor do we get any real insight into an internal psychological reasoning. A scene simply incorporating a battle of the mind would have been enough to avoid questions being asked at the end, I immediately just think of “The Manchurian Candidate” when I think of this plot point.

In my mind The Guest was probably never going to live up to Adam’s last film. I had high hopes for it and no doubt I was still entertained. There were aspects about it I loved but the predictability and convenience of certain plot revelations held it back by a long shot from making it into the best films of the year. The action and final scenes helped the momentum but An unbelievable soundtrack, Gorgeous Maika Monroe and a stand out performance from Dan Stevens just aren’t enough to really hit the spot.

My rating for “The Guest” is 6/10

MASSACRE AT FEMUR CREEK

I stumbled across an interview on Bloodbath and Beyond (YouTube Channel), with Kyle Hytonen about his 70’s/80’s inspired slasher short film “Massacre At Femur Creek”. I’m always keen to watch and review new independent films like this one. I purchased the online screener from Kyle’s website, which I will put the link for at the end of the review. If it sounds like the type of slasher you would enjoy, please support the film and buy a copy and help spread the word. It’s the summer of 1984 and three best friends decide to celebrate one’s birthday by taking a camping trip at Femur creek. Shortly after a few cold ones and a couple of joints, a mysterious killer in a mask arrives to crash the party. The film stars Nigel Grinstead, Andrew Barr, Dean Young, Heather Dicke and John Migliore.

Massacre At Femur Creek doesn’t claim to be original, it’s clearly a direct homage to slasher films of the 70’s and 80’s, particularly the Friday the 13th series. It was shot for an estimated $3,000 and the running time is just 18 minutes.

THE GOOD

Right from the outset you can tell the crew really utilized most of their funds on equipment and the aesthetic look of the film. The production value is really impressive. From the super smooth camera work and the nice clear audio, down to the interesting shot choices and well-lit night scenes, it’s all great. The editing works nicely in giving us a bunch of cool 80’s references. Some of them come in the form of items like a tape recorder or old VW the trio drive and others are covered through the dialogue. I really dug the cheesy continuous 80’s style synth music, I can’ get enough of it. There just aren’t enough films capitalizing on how cool an old school retro soundtrack can be.

The content in the short running time is mostly enjoyable. The characters poking fun at gps satellite positioning and the possibility of having all your music on one device, being an invention light years away made for a good chuckle. The dialogue doesn’t get serious at any point which keeps things light and fun but at the same time doesn’t leave you with anything really worth remembering. The killer’s look wasn’t exactly original but I still like those Leatherface (Texas Chainsaw Massacre reference) inspired plastic masks. He also moves in a similar way to the aforementioned. The practical effects were pretty cool and once again shown in the same kind of style of the original Friday the 13th, really basic effects with a decent amount of blood.

THE BAD

Some of the dialogue gets a bit clunky at times and many of the jokes were a bit immature for my taste but I understand it’s an homage and the writing lends itself to cheese. The acting is decent enough considering these are all friends of the director, nothing bad just not all that great either. Everyone completely underplaying their reactions to the killer was what stood out about the acting. The girl at the beginning all the way through to one of the guys being killed around the campfire, it’s like no one gave a shit about the severity of the situation and that’s not very realistic. Then you have the killer who laughs insanely for no reason which went to the other end of the spectrum of feeling forced and not creepy like it should have. Some of the writing needed to be tidied up to stamp out those issues.

The blood and gore effects I did see were pretty cool but I feel like so much effort was spent getting the production value stuff looking great (which is important), that the opportunity to do more with the kills and action took a back seat. I was hoping for more action (even given the short running time) and the final shots were farfetched beyond comprehension (haha if you’ve seen it you know), and I know it was probably intentional to poke fun of slashers where the killer just won’t die, but the killer plain and simply would not come back from that!

Massacre At Femur Creek did what it probably set out to do and that’s entertain. The production value and professionalism technically is as good as anything in the genre. A bit more time spent on editing some dialogue and adding some more carnage could have seen this held in even higher regard. I’m interested to see what Kyle does next and be sure to check out the film at the link below, all slasher fans will enjoy! Thanks guys.

http://kylewhytonen.wix.com/femurcreek#!store/c1yhh

My rating for “Massacre At Femur Creek” is 7/10

SECRETARY

“Secretary” is a film I’ve heard a lot about over the years it’s directed by Steven Shainberg and it stars Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. It was released back in 2002 and for the most part contains the exact same plot as the smash hit book series and soon to be major motion picture “50 Shades Of Grey”. Sadomasochism has been covered somewhat in films pre dating Secretary, such as “9 and a half weeks” with Kim Basinger and 2001’s “Birthday Girl” with Nicole Kidman, neither of which I have seen. I went into Secretary with a completely open mind but honestly not a lot of interest in the subject matter. Lee Holloway (Gyllenhaal), has just been released from a psychiatric facility after having battled depression for most of her life. After arriving home to very disconnected parents, her mother Joan and her father Burt. Burt’s addiction is alcohol and Joan tends to bury her head in the sand when it comes to both her husband and daughter. Lee knows how to type and type well and decides to use that talent in applying for office/secretary positions. She lands a job with mysterious and sullen lawyer Edward Grey (yes like Mr Grey will see you now.. *rolls eyes*). What starts out as a regular office employer/employee relationship quickly turns sadistic and sexual in nature as the two find something in each other the other so desperately longs for. The film also stars Jeremy Davies, Stephen McHattie, Lesley Ann Warren and Jessica Tuck.

THE GOOD

The decision to cast Maggie (whom at the time, only had a couple of well-known credits to her name), in such a demanding and particular role was probably a little risky. After having seen the film I think her performance speaks for itself. She manages a lot of different emotions and I commend her on being comfortable enough for full frontal nudity and effortlessly embracing all the idiosyncrasies of her character. James Spader has been in the business for a long time and I don’t think there’s much he can’t do. He’s always been a great character actor, rarely the captain but always a reliable crew member. I enjoyed some of the narration from Maggie, giving us a little insight into the incident that landed her in a mental facility and the ongoing struggle that it is to keep a level head and not resort to old habits. The subject matter and the dynamics of the master/slave relationship or however you choose to put it was a pretty original idea (long before 50 Shades was thought of).

It’s a really well shot film there are lots of particular cuts and shot choices, along with some unique positions. It gives the audience a very voyeuristic look at the relationship between Lee and Edward and what they do to each other. Angelo Badalamenti who is one of my favorite scorer’s, responsible for David Lynch’s films amongst many others over the years, brings a very quirky and free-flowing score to accompany the dialogue. There was a particular piece of music during Lee and Edward’s first meeting with which the brass and string pause points flowed with the tone and diction of the dialogue, you don’t see or hear that too often. The content within the story is sufficient enough for you too see the compounding issues that Lee has with relationships and trust. The introduction of Peter (Jeremy Davies), lined up as a possible love interest for Lee by the family seemed very random, I might have missed how they knew each other in the first place, I can’t remember. The development and character arc of Lee isn’t there in the same fashion when it comes to Edward. He has his quirks and things in his life you’re not fully privy too but no single scene ever stays with him long enough to discover his deeper inner fears and thoughts.

THE BAD

I wasn’t sure on some of the details about Edward either. it seemed to me with his random questioning during the “interview” process that he had some mild form of aspergers. A lot of the things he said were very random and not at all what you would ask in an interview. It get’s very personal very quickly and at that point he doesn’t know Lee’s mindset and what she may think is appropriate or not. Does Edward have any family?, Does he have any form of love in his life? He seems to have love for the orchids in his office and a real paranoid mindset about vermin, constantly asking Lee to set traps for mice or rat’s? I’m not sure what that was all about. It’s a very nicely furnished and clean office why would there be mice?. I guess those were all just parts of his personality that didn’t need to be addressed, or at least in the writers minds it didn’t. I found most of Lee’s problems seemed to stem from daddy issues, who knows if there was abuse when she was younger or was it just a lack of interest on his part in knowing his addiction was causing a problem for the family. Also, I would have thought that Lee’s stint in a psychiatric facility would have to have been disclosed before any job applications or before getting the job with Edward, I suppose it’s not that important but if you’re looking for realism.

For a hot-shot lawyer Edward doesn’t seem to have many clients either. They could have at least incorporated a few more visitors to his office, other than just the phone ringing. I might have missed something but Trisha, the women that comes to his office Was she supposed to be an ex gf or ex-wife??. She seemed very agitated and he didn’t want to see her, maybe an unsatisfied client? Who knows. On another note I didn’t have a problem so much with the relationship between Lee and Peter but I’m not sure why Lee was going along with it when she didn’t have any real feelings for Peter. Was it just to keep her parents happy? I feel like those scenes weren’t crucial in the context of the story. After all we know what kind of dynamic she is drawn too and she’s not going to get that from him so why lead him on?. I found the pacing to be a little bit slow and 10 to 15 minutes could have been cut off the running time and it still would have kept things neat.

There’s no denying Secretary is a well made movie, given the subject matter and the budget ($4,000,000). It’s well acted, smoothly shot and the soundtrack is great. For a topic I don’t have much interest in and can’t really relate too in my personal life its a difficult one to critique objectively. At its core I think this is a love story, a very different type of love, a love probably you and I won’t ever have. It’s dark, it’s manipulative and sometimes cruel but it’s whatever you want it to be. The last piece of dialogue from Lee sums it up, they appear to be like everybody else but underneath the surface they know the dynamic of what they are looking for and what they need, it’s not right and it’s not wrong it’s just all personal. Each of us have our own way’s of connecting and I suppose that’s how you find the right person for you. Interesting.

My rating for “Secretary” is 6/10

SPIDERS

After having read some very poor comments on the quality of conversion for “Spiders 3D”, I opted for the safe bet and purchased the regular DVD for $10. “Spiders” is directed by Tibor Takacs (Ice Spiders), who has done his fair share of creature feature films over the last decade. I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a remake of the film of the same name from 2000, but I’m assuming it is. Spiders is set in New York City, the story follows Jason (Patrick Muldoon), a traffic controller for the NY subway system. After a soviet space station crashes into a section of the railway and mutated spiders are released an outbreak threatens the entire city. Jason and his soon to be ex-wife Rachel (Christa Campbell), and their daughter Emily (Sydney Sweeney) must survive the military protocol and the scientists as well as the Spiders themselves and put a stop to the rise of the Queen mother. The film also stars Shelly Varod, William Hope and Pete- Lee Wilson.

Now, right off the bat you either take these silly Syfy or Asylum presented creature features for exactly what they are cheesy fun or you don’t. If you can’t ignore all the obvious issues and low budgets enough to get some entertainment from them (and I’m sure that’s most of you haha) then your better off giving them a miss. I have always had a soft spot for the B movie and for the most part these are made for the love of the genre and everyone just sets out to have a bit of fun. You still have to have some essentials though before you decide to make one of these. I was hoping for a modern version of the 1955 monster movie “Tarantula” which I recently watched. I didn’t think much of the film it’s 60 years old and obviously dated now. However, what I did like was the techniques they used to shoot the spider because it was real, CG wasn’t even a thought back then. Did I get a modern-day Tarantula with “Spiders” or not?? (haha doesn’t sound right does it?)

THE GOOD

Lets kick things off with the technical aspects which can only be described as a mixed bag when you’re looking at this genre of film. The audio and camera work in this one is pretty good. They used a lot of crane shots which give the action scenes a pretty interesting look. The investigative and dialogue orientated scenes are done solidly too. The various sets like the warehouse, the apartment and the restaurant were clearly cheaply put together to replicate something you’d see in NYC and they looked decent enough.

Patrick Muldoon has been a part of a lot of these creature feature films and originally started in daytime soap acting but he actually stands out above the rest of the cast here. Is he that good? Or is everybody else that bad? A little bit of both probably. I read a lot of reviews that really slammed the acting, I didn’t think any of it was particularly cringe worthy but all of Rachel’s lines Christa totally underplayed with emotion/expressionless facials. It’s the secondary characters though, like friends of Jason’s and members of the Military that were quite bad and you couldn’t take anything they had to say seriously. The better part of the film was the climax and the overall look of the spiders. Yeah sure it’s cheap CG, which most of these films rely on but if you watch enough of them you can tell the difference between the cheesy lame and the god awful (which no one wants to see). The bigger the spiders get the better they look and I think given the budget, most of which was clearly spent on CG you’d expect this result.

THE BAD

Okay wow the bad, where do I start. Let’s face it a film like this isn’t at all original and it’s virtually a remake of 3 or more other films, therefore it was never going to be a masterpiece. However, I’m thinking that some of that estimated 7 million dollar budget should have been spent on some council/city permits to make shooting on the streets of New York City a reality. I will break it down for you, what we have here is a junction of two streets made out to look like New York City. Now the problem with that is it’s near impossible to recreate the backdrop of the rest of this massive city with cheap CGI and blend it seamlessly. They chose to shoot the same shot over and over as well as from different angles to try to make it look like a different part of the city and it’s so obviously a studio back lot that looks terrible. From the pavement, to the fire hydrants, to the coffee shop fronts and the one wall facades holding up entire “pretend buildings”, it’s all so obviously abysmal you can’t ignore it. The B-movie hit “Sharknado” wasn’t much different but it had a certain charm, a flare, it was fast paced and had that pure entertainment, this did not.

Changing signs of different platform stops and hanging a few fake cobwebs in an otherwise clean set design of a subway system isn’t going to fool many folks, or maybe it is? (haha). A lot of the other reviewers didn’t mention a thing about the pathetic lack of attention to detail so maybe I’m imagining this?. If you don’t have the money to get council or city approval to shut down streets/traffic etc, then fine that’s okay but change the location don’t shoot two streets and retreat into the studio. Don’t have a chase sequence in a warehouse full of boxes that contain nothing, what the hell?? When they all fall over you will get a hollow sound effect, it’s just embarrassing. Couldn’t the crew be bothered filling them with something? or were they worried they wouldn’t get what they needed in one take. We are given a lot of standard stock footage of traffic, but zero extras in any of the scenes and to make matters worse the continuous establishing shots of New York just remind us of how truly amateurish this is put together, I could go on but I wont.

Ignore the fact all the familiar family cliché’s are there. The bickering couple going through a divorce and the neglected daughter. You know Jason is going to probably save the day, rescue his family and everyone will live happily ever after. Obviously the film has to lose points for not having a different spin on the characters but in the greater scheme of the  story it’s not going to make or break the overall enjoyment. The biggest hindrance to the entertainment value of Spiders is the awful pacing, especially in the second act. They hint at a doctor/scientist who may become more involved in the story but never does, along with a random killing from a hitman?? not sure what that had to do with anything and where did he go??. By the time there is any on-screen action you will be well past the point of caring. The final battle with the Queen has a few fun moments but ultimately the action stinks. Spiders drag soldiers away or wrap them up in webbing while the colonel shoots at them with his pathetic hand gun, (as you would if you were a colonel *rolls eyes*). The military is completely useless and to make things more disappointing they don’t even get killed off in any cool or gory manner.

If your still reading you know what Spiders is all about by now, don’t say I didn’t warn you. If this thing actually resembled a 7 million dollar budget and we got some deaths and a lot faster pacing it could have been alright. This is a guy who enjoyed “Battledogs”, “Sand Sharks” and countless other cheese balls, but this almost scrapes the barrel at contending with “Jurassic Shark” and “Shark Week” a couple of the worst films your likely to ever see. I suggest watching “Eight Legged Freaks” if you’re keen on a giant spider movie, hell even watch “Tarantula” at this point anything would be better.

My rating for “Spiders” is 2.5/10

BOUNTY KILLER

“Bounty Killer” was released in 2013, it’s an action/grindhouse style flick set in a futuristic/post apocalyptic world populated by corporate greed. The Council of Nine have become the new law, judges but not the executioners. They leave that task for hired guns known as Bounty Killers who are responsible for killing white-collar criminals. These men and women kill for the body count, the fame but most importantly the money that goes along with it. The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden), a bounty hunter who has had some trouble with the law and decides to take a ride and visit the council in hopes that they will spare his life for the crime he committed. Mary Death (played by the gorgeous Christian Pitre), has been on and off with Drifter since they met at a bar long before things went south. She decides to take it upon herself to hunt Drifter down and finish the job herself. With clear inspiration from films such as “Mad Max”, “Shoot Em Up” and the cool little indie flick “Bitch Slap”, Bounty Killer combines gorgeous women, fast cars, arsenals of weapons and pure carnage and manages to deliver on all fronts. The film also stars Kristanna Loken (Terminator: Rise Of The Machines), Barak Hardley, Beverly D’Angelo and Gary Busey.

THE GOOD

Let’s begin with the style of a film like this, at no point does this claim to be original in style or in story so don’t get carried away writing this thing off before you even get started. The intro credits open up much like a Robert Rodriguez film (Machete) and some of the editing and sketching looks awesome. The camera zooms in and out of drawn maps that transition onto location and sets, it really gives it that cool grindhouse dynamic. The plot of course is very much along the lines of so many other films like Dredd, Mad Max and Shoot Em Up, just to name a few. I liked the modern-day social popularity contest and the competitive nature of these bounty killers, it was almost like something you see on reality TV these days. Mary Death has a lot of sass and knows how to kick some ass, she takes it up to Drifter for most of the film. The two seem in constant competition as to who has more kills and whose the bigger fan favorite and that makes for some really fun scenes.

We get some pretty cool characters throughout the film. For starters, the eye candy in the movie is a real treat. Christian rocks a killer “Old Town” (Sin City reference), kind of wardrobe with awesome white boots with complimentary knives attached (of course), she kicks just as much butt with her hair down as she does up and you won’t want to miss a couple of her absolutely brutal kills as well as having a good perve (haha). Drifter is a bit of a dope and not all that interesting as a character but his side kick and shy “gun caddy” Jack (Hardley), was a breath of fresh air. I recently saw Barak in Bryan Bertino’s “Mockingird”,which was a very underwhelming film but he was by far the best aspect of it and played his role of a clown very well. Loken as Catherine, head of one of the main corporations still looks every bit as good as she did twelve years ago in T3. Although her attire is a little different she still pulls of the sexy office manager look. Topping things off I make quick mention of Mindy Robinson (up and coming actress with a lot of credits to here name), and her bar girls who supply us with some nudity and look stunning. The gypsies also make for an interesting addition to the script. This is surprisingly well shot considering the modest budget. The car chases through the arid landscape look awesome and the action sequences play out perfectly. The interesting music choices really helped add to the enjoyment as well.

I think Bounty Killer’s strongest aspect is the pacing and choreography of the fight sequences. They are every bit as good as a Rodriguez film and nothing ever gets boring. Each of the acts of the film has a main fight and I think as the film progresses they get better and that’s how it should be. In the beginning a few criminals bite the dust and the dry but funny Willy hands out the payments along with a few pretty funny lines. In the middle portion of the film we get a great daytime chase sequence through the bad lands involving Drifter and Jack and a bus being followed by a group of crazy gypsies. This made for some intense action and some great blood and gore. I don’t want to spoil any of the kills but this one is a hard R rating and there’s some of the best kills I’ve seen in a film of this genre and most of them are all done practically.

THE BAD

Right off the bat we all know this thing isn’t one bit original and that causes most critics to judge it unfairly. Most people would naturally draw comparisons between this and other films of the same genre, I have already acknowledged that so let’s move on. Technically the film is not without fault, it’s evident in the audio issues during some of the action sequences. When characters are in vehicles or on motorbikes and they are attempting to talk to each other it comes across pretty hollow and distant. The dialogue probably isn’t terribly important in those scenes but who knows if it was because you can’t really hear it over the sound of engines. Some of the explosions and CG backgrounds of the landscape look pretty hokey and that stuff probably should have been kept to a minimum due to budget issues. It’s almost as though the crew thought they were making a hundred million dollar movie and tried to construct it accordingly. The stuff on location, the buildings the detail of the scenes look really good for the most part, it’s just when things are shown on a bigger scale that it looks a little corny. The bad lands (big desert), at night looked particularly average. The scene was shot with almost zero lighting, just a few flashes here and there and a lot of wind. I’m not going to sugarcoat it because it looked pretty cringeworthy, fortunately it was only for five minutes or so.

There is definitely some inconsistent acting as well, some of the acting during general conversation was a little bit hammy and didn’t really add much to the story, which was kind of a typical one anyway. I thought Christian was really good in some of her emotional scenes but some of the “I’m a tough girl” stuff was a little forced. The rest of the cast put in decent enough performances given the content of the film. The lack of plot and predictable tropes held the film back from really competing with the best. You know the predictable romance is coming and that each of these characters are going to try to save the other one and when the writers really try to raise the human emotion in order to connect with you in a film like this it kind of takes you out of it because everything else in it isn’t supposed to be taken seriously, it’s just stupid fun.

Bounty Killer is just 80 minutes of pure entertainment. I’m not a real guys guy but everything in this looked great, from the girls, to the cars and bikes, to the gun and knife fights and most importantly the brutal practical effects. I feel like I shouldn’t be giving this thing a high rating simply for the fact that countless other films have done exactly the same thing well before this was even an idea. Nothing will ever be as good as a Robert Rodriguez film within the genre but Bounty Killer is just a blast and about as good as these things get!

My rating for “Bounty Killer” is 7/10

FOXCATCHER

“Foxcatcher” is the much-anticipated true story of John Du Pont, a multi millionaire philanthropist and all around Renaissance man and the relationship he forms with brother wrestling pair Mark and Dave Shultz. As Mark prepares for the 1988 Seoul games, John’s manipulative personality pushes the trio to boiling point. The screenplay was adapted from the book which was written by Mark himself. It’s directed by Bennett Miller (“Moneyball” and “Capote”) and stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Steve Carell. I had the opportunity to see this before its official release date and it’s one of those films that I built up so much in my mind it was probably always going to struggle to reach the height I expected. How does it shape up against the other drama’s of 2014? Find out.

THE GOOD

Let’s talk about the extremely risky decision made in the casting of Channing Tatum as Mark and more importantly Steve Carell as John. Most people are used to Tatum playing this hunky/heart throb type of character, taking his shirt off, dancing and basically acting a lot younger than he really is. The success of the movie largely rests on his shoulders, Mark is the protagonist and your along for his journey and you have to be sold on those feelings of failure, disappointment and resentment that he has throughout the film. I think Channing really conveys Mark’s vulnerability and those characteristics that probably drew John Du Pont to him in the first place. This is Channing’s best work by a long shot and I feel much better knowing he can handle a serious role because he was cast in Tarantino’s new film “The Hateful Eight” which I’m really excited for. Mark Ruffalo plays Dave the older of the two and the more well-known amongst the wrestling community. Dave sees himself more as the teacher but seems to have the respect of just about everyone he meets and I’m not sure he is entirely aware that Mark feels inferior and that nothing he does is good enough and that he will always remain in his brothers shadow. Ruffalo has put in some pretty solid performances over the years and he does what’s required of him here but his character isn’t fully explored and the acting highlights aren’t there.

I need to start a fresh paragraph for Steve Carell. Wow, To the skeptics out there and those of you who said Steve Carell was typecast and could never pull off a serious dramatic role you might end up with egg all over your face! I don’t know a lot about the real John Du Pont but Carell’s timing and delivery is fantastic and must surely put him in the running for an Oscar nomination this year. Combine the subtle hints of underlining psychiatric issues and that amazing transformation into making him look like the real John and you have yourself a winner. He makes for a very interesting character study and it’s very odd because a lot of the people who knew him said he must have been insane at the time of the crime because it was so out of character for him. He was known and respected throughout the community and nobody seem to know that he had these issues with alcohol and drugs, amongst other mental problems. A lot of the details about him aren’t fully explored at length in the film, which spends most of its duration focusing on the dynamics of his relationship with both brothers, Mark in particular.

From the very opening frame this has some wonderful shot choices and some lovely cinematography. There is a real focus on showing the intensity and work that goes into becoming the best at something and that’s reflected in the style in which the sporting scenes are shown. The transition from scene to scene is really neat and it never lingers on any one thing for too long. Sometimes the camera is stationary while the actors move in and out of frame and I really like that. The score sets a particular mood right from the outset and minus a couple of oddly placed songs, it accompanies the tone of the film very well. There isn’t any one scene that stands out in the film as most important but the essentials of their lives are depicted. On one side of the coin you have the competitive nature of these two brothers, one who has nothing except for a dream and the other, a family man well-respected by those involved in the sport trying to teach his craft to others. John on the other hand comes from a very isolated lifestyle and seems to have been raised by a somewhat vacant and disillusioned mother who doesn’t seem to really know her son. At heart, I think this is what the entire film is about. John trying to prove his worth to his mother in order to connect on some level with her, or with anyone for that matter. It’s a sad story about a lonely man who appears to have everything but in reality has nothing. Comparisons can be drawn between John Du Pont and Jay Gatsby in their search for love and acceptance for who they really are.

THE BAD

There aren’t many issues with Foxcatcher but the biggest one is the pacing. It’s a combination of the fact that this is based on a true story and therefore I think most of this is exactly what happened. A few scenes get a little bit tedious and one involving some drug use in a helicopter on the way to a dinner party seemed out-of-place. Other than conveying John’s issue with drugs (which could have been in any other scene) it served no real purpose. The comedy in said scene was awkward and not all that funny either. Speeding up the middle act and cutting the entire running time by 15-20 minutes would have just tidied the screenplay up a little bit.

The only aspect I found fault in was that nobody noticed John’s decline and increasingly odd behavior. His mannerisms and a few of the seemingly insignificant things he wasn’t happy with and had to vent about surely would have raised alarm bells with someone in his life?? Then again, maybe not because things unfolded as they did and don’t seem like they were ever going to be avoided. I would have liked to have known more about his issues with Drugs and Alcohol because other than one celebratory scene with a few to many glasses of wine and that helicopter flight, I wasn’t even aware he had any real problem with those two things. He drinks a few times in the film but no different to most people.

Foxcatcher is such a well made movie that accurately depicts the true story of a lonely man and his eventual psychological breakdown. The performances are fabulous and alone are worth the price of the ticket. It’s richly shot and edited, sounds great and the makeup team did some of the best prosthetic work since Clint Eastwood’s “J Edgar.” Although it is a little plodding and lacks full disclosure containing a clear-cut motive that some audiences need, it remains one of the best drama’s of the year, catch it in theaters from January 15th!

My rating for “Foxcatcher” is 7/10

HITCHHIKER MASSACRE

Firstly I just want to say thankyou to James L. Bills, director of the new 80’s inspired slasher film “Hitchhiker Massacre”, for allowing me early access to the film through a screener. I stumbled across the teaser trailer for the film after reviewing another similar slasher called “Babysitter Massacre” (see review). Beautiful young women are being slaughtered on desert highways by a madman. Sally is heading out on the open road (to go somewhere???) when she is unknowingly picked up by a stranger. Will she survive the night? Or will she become just another Hitchhiking victim. The film stars the stunning Ely LaMay, John Barrymore, Allen Perada, Kathryn Cronyn, James Bartholet and Veronica Lavery.

I’m unsure what the estimated budget is here, at a guess I would say somewhere in between $20,000- $100,00 but don’t quote me on that. We all know what to expect from these low-budget slasher flicks. For success they need to deliver on the gore and the girls, a little bit of story goes a long way too. A lot of directors set out to make these very self-aware horror films inspired by everything done in the genre over the last 30 years. The problem a lot of people will find is that everyone’s taste is different and what they draw inspiration from is different. I’m only one guy so don’t take my word as gospel if you are a fan of these types of films, I think they are nearly all worth watching just to help separate the good from the bad or just for your own piece of mind.

THE GOOD

Let’s start with one of the awesome homages to Tobe Hooper and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. Right off the bat we get a lovely shot of sexy Ely LaMay’s booty in her denim short shorts. Combine her with super cute Katherine Cronyn sporting the cheerleader outfit and stunning Veronica Lavery caught up in a roleplaying situation with her boyfriend, seeing Lavery sporting some hot leather and you think this could work. Sexy girls aspect, check. They all seemed like nice and down to earth girls but does that mean I had the slightest bit of interest into what was happening with their characters?. (let me come back to that). Let’s move along to the fantastic 80’s synth orientated score which reminded me of a couple of my favourite old school film’s “Maniac Cop” and the more recent sleazefest “Gutterballs”. There is nothing better than a great slasher music theme and Hitchhiker had it!

The acting is about what we’ve come to expect. No one is truly horrible but no one does anything overly worth remembering. I thought LaMay had a few decent scenes where her reactions seemed realistic enough. Lavery’s lovely (polish? I’m going to say) accent rings through and that was nice. The rest of the cast just seem to make up the numbers. A lot of the still shots were good, other than framing the actors faces oddly during some of the intense scenes the rest of the camera work was pretty decent. The body parts in the beginning of the film kicked things off with some decent practical effects. Sadly most of the violence seemed to be cut (maybe due to budget), but there was one effective kill involving a cracked head and a lighter.

THE BAD

Before I start with the many things that I personally think are wrong with Hitchhiker Massacre, let me say once again this is just me and everyone looks for and expects something different from these types of films, so keep that in mind. The film opens up with some really rubbish grindhouse style shot footage that I guess was supposed to pay homage to those 70’s films of the same genre, but just felt truly out-of-place and kick started precedings with that amateur hour feel. Unless I’m watching a Tarantino or Rodriguez film I don’t want to see that, plain and simply it looks shit unless it’s done with a lot of money. The audio started out hollow and low in volume but it did get better as the film progressed so that’s not too bad. I already mentioned the zoomed camera work which is just so close to the actors faces that you can’t see anything else in the background, it’s not a good technique and it doesn’t help to set the scene.

Anytime anything remotely decent is about to happen there is a quick cut or a transition to some unimportant establishing shot of a CGI moon or a girl’s head. I’m not kidding the exact same shots are used at least half a dozen times in a short space of time and that’s just a big no-no. I get that sometimes with a limited budget you can’t transition how you want but there has to be a better option than resorting to that. Not to mention we have at least 5 or 6 minutes of worthless establishing shots in the beginning of the film where Sally (LaMay) is just walking through hills and over roads and down dirt paths to get who the hell knows where?? because it’s never really established. I’m sorry I just don’t get the point of that. Why fill up your movie with that when there is so much else you could be doing?. Do we really need to see her walking, then fade, then walking, then fade in what feels like real-time??

So much of the story or should I say lack there of, is focused on a whole bunch of random characters not connected by anything stumbling around the arid landscape of LA. I didn’t even know the protagonist’s name was Sally until about the last 15 minutes of the movie, that’s how much I didn’t care that this thing had lost me right off the bat. It’s not that you really notice the stagnant pacing of the film until about the 4th or 5th scene of pure filler just there to extend the running time. For example a couple having pointless desert sex, someone attempting to investigate something or an overweight big wig camping out in the woods because his wife has apparently taken everything from him takes up about half the film. It becomes quickly evident how plotless this is and let’s be honest most of us don’t need much as far as a base for a slasher film is concerned but you must have something, otherwise what is the point, I’d just watch an FX reel.

I didn’t want to be saying these things about Hitchhiker Massacre but unfortunately I have too. I get that this is low-budget filmmaking and you can’t do everything you want. James cast the gorgeous women, some decent comedy here and there but was just so far off the mark on story, the amount of gore and writing a remotely memorable killer. This is just my opinion and I have to be honest, If James has set out to make a film inspired by the things he loves then that’s all you can do. After watching this what he likes and what I like are probably very different but I also understand I can be harder to please than most (according to my friends and family). It’s not to say that other fans of the genre won’t like this it’s just that I found to many of the essentials missing, Sorry James!

My rating for “Hitchhiker Massacre” is 4/10