Timber Falls

Timber Falls
Starring: Josh Randall, Brianna Brown, Nick Searcy, Beth Broderick
Directed by: Tony Giglio

Style: Backwater kidnapping
Blood and Guts: 3
Fright Factor: 1
Laugh Factor: 0
Weapons of choice: Double-bladed scythe, firearms
Overall rating: 2 out of 5

Mike (Randall) and Sheryl (Brown) are looking for a nice weekend getaway in the national park, free from all the craziness of the modern world. Instead, they find themselves victims of the crazy world of a fanatically religious couple living off the beaten path. Between the dark intentions of their captors and the deformed maniac that is the captors’ son, Mike and Sheryl can only hope to survive long enough to escape.

This film struggles throughout the story to engage the audience, and that is its biggest fault. The actors all appear to be trying their best, but there are a lot of moments that are very hollow and flat, particularly between Mike and Sheryl. As a result, there is never a strong, believable connection between them, so the rest of the plot that hinges around them drawing strength from one another to survive, is left out to dry. Other characters suffer too. At one point, it seems like the director is trying to make the point that not all country boys and actually malicious, but then it decides to portray its characters as that anyway.

The main antagonists all do well for themselves, but the story seems to be aiming for a much more deep-seated, psychological horror and ends up being too subtle with all of the events. In fact, the early scene where Mike and Sheryl are intimidated by some country boys coming back from a hunting trip has a greater sense of danger and malice than anything else that comes after it. As the movie progresses, it has to stretch more and more to even have a sense of danger conveyed, something that is not helped by the fact that Mike struts around like he knows he has a 95% chance of survival no matter what.

Not all of the movie is disappointing. The maniac son with the double-bladed sickle and some decent makeup effects feels at home to this style of film, though it is a shame that the movie instead tries to be something it isn’t by focusing on the kidnappers and not their homicidal kin. While it is noble to try other avenues of horror, one cannot get away with psychological horror without very strong characters and an excellent sense of atmosphere and timing, something this movie lacks. Nothing proves this more than the final shot of the film ripped off from a genre already suffering from cliches.

In the end, this movie suffers from being far too generic and dull. No matter how many seemingly new tricks it pulls out of its bag, it still feels like its clunking along thanks to a few wooden performances and a lack of decent story development. With a few revision drafts to refine the story down to something solid, this movie could have been decent. Instead, it feels too sloppy and falls to the wayside.

Altered

Altered
Starring: Paul McCarthy-Boyington, Brad William Henke, Adam Kaufman, Michael C. Williams
Directed by: Eduardo Sánchez

Style: Alien revenge
Blood and Guts: 4
Fright Factor: 3
Laugh Factor: 0
Weapons of choice: Firearms, teeth
Overall rating: 4 out of 5

Most people are suckers. Aliens abduct them in the dead of night, do all sorts of unspeakable things to them, drop them off again, and nobody ever does anything about it but whine and complain and try and convince others that it will happen to them. This is not the case for this group of four friends. Instead, they plan how to capture one of the creatures that abducted them years ago. Once it is captured however, none of them quite know what to do next. More importantly, none of them can foresee just how grave the repercussions of their actions will be.

Altered showcases how an independent little horror film can be better than many feature films. All of the characters are well fleshed out, allowing us to care about their fates and how the story plays out. The direction is also well done, allowing the tension and, at times, suspense of the scene to do the work rather than cheap camera tricks. The special effects are are well-used, with quite a bit of violence happening but all appropriate rather than excessive.

What makes this film work is that it isn't trying to be the greatest horror film you have ever seen. It is straight forward, simple, and sets out to tell you an interesting story. It never tries to be more than it is by utilizing outlandish or inappropriate effects, and all of the actors and crew work as if they are committed to the telling this story. The alien doesn't try to be outlandish and instead is actually very intimidating, especially when it is revealed what happens when it bites you.

If I had one criticism of the film, is that it overuses its darkness a bit too much. There are some effective shadows, but the entire film feels like it was soaked a little too long in the dark. It's the one film contrivance that feels forced, trying to impose an atmosphere rather than letting the story, the environment, and the actors do that naturally.

I would recommend seeing this film if you're looking for a different kind of horror film, one that uses story and character to chip away at your nerves before letting a vicious alien loose on all of it. It probably has better acting than you'll see in most studio pictures, and even more rarely, actually knows what it is doing.

The Reaping

The Reaping
Starring: Hilary Swank, David Morrissey, Idris Elba
Directed by: Stephen Hopkins

Style: Demon spawn
Blood and Guts: 2
Fright Factor: 1
Laugh Factor: 1
Weapons of choice: Plagues, knives
Overall rating: 1 out of 5

Katherine Winter (Swank) has made an academic career out of disproving miracles. She and her assistant Ben (Elba) travel the world to find the deeply spiritual and make it mundane. All of this stems from Winter's daughter being sacrificed to lift a curse during a trip to to the Sudan. However, the town of Haven seems to be different. Their entire river turns to human blood, the cattle waste away with no biological explanation, and things only get worse from there. In the center of it all is a girl said to be a demonic child prophesied about in Biblical texts. Katherine must find the answers before the town decides that destroying the girl is the only way to stop the plagues.

This movie feels very rushed, like everyone started working when it was only half-developed, and as a result they have a jumbled mess that they released as a movie. For example, it is about ten minutes into the movie that you get a sense of who these characters actually are. They start off with a priest that has something weird happen to his pictures, then we meet Swank's character but have no idea what she is doing or why. It is only after that scene that she is introduced as a professor at a university studying miracles. Seriously, the beginning was like watching Outbreak.

This entire movie suffers from lazy storytelling. There is no real time for any suspense to be built as all of the plagues come almost on top of each other. They arrive and the river is blood. Next scene, the cows are having trouble. Next scene, the frogs fall from the sky. Also, there is a dream within a dream sequence that is supposed to leave us wondering if it happened but instead leaves us wondering what happened. Many scenes do not really advance a plot more as allow room for metaphors and flashbacks that try poorly to serve as suspense devices.

Meanwhile, all of the characters besides Katherine only have a cursory characterization to them. When the town is riled up and wants to murder the girl, there is never really a sense of danger because we don't really see the town as anything but crazy people who are about to fly off of the deep end. Subsequently, the ending of the film suffers because there is no connection or attachment to anyone. We don't see paranoia brought to a broil. We see people wanting to kill a kid to save their town, and that doesn't hold up for an entire movie.

Finally, there is the ending. I won't give it away, because unlike the movie, I have the ability to respect a surprise. However, the last shot is so hackneyed that I wanted the director to appear in the corner of the screen and wink at us. People need to realize that some hooks are not clever if you do not build the entire story with care.

Overall, this movie commits one of the worst offenses a horror movie can commit: it is dull. Very few scenes hold any interest, including when characters are in danger. It doesn't really offer anything new that we haven't seen in other demonic seed movies, and on top of it all, it thinks it is clever. By the end, I was the one feeling reaped.

Mulberry Street

Mulberry Street
Starring: Laurel Astri, Kim Blair, Ron Brice, Bo Corre, Nick Damici
Directed by: Jim Mickle

Style: Creature feature
Blood and Guts: 3
Fright Factor: 1
Laugh Factor: 1
Weapons of choice: Biting, fists, baseball bats
Overall rating: 2 out of 5

New York just can't catch a break. However, it does catch a plague pretty well. This oft-besieged-in-movies city this time faces an outbreak of people turning into vicious rat creatures. One bite from an infected rat or ratbeast is enough to turn you, and the city soon finds itself in quarantined lock down. On Mulberry Street, tenants of an apartment building have to buckle down for survival while others caught outside struggle to make it back home.

One of my biggest problems with this film is that it takes a very interesting idea and slowly bogs it down with bad directing, uninteresting writing, and very rough cinematography. There are quite a few moments where scenes happen in darkness, making it very hard to discern what is going on. This can work, but the way it is utilized smacks of trying to hide incomplete make-up and blood effects. It seems cheap rather than effective. If you are going to do a close-up and point the camera directly at something happening, we need to be able to see what it is. Otherwise, insinuate and put it behind a table or in a long shot.

Meanwhile, all of the characters are incomplete. They show the beginnings of characterization but never really develop past the survival instinct and a few broad generalizations. There are some moments, but they are so fleeting that nothing sticks. Thus, when the story gets to the point when a well-liked character almost escapes only to be dragged backwards to his or her doom, the movie acts like the audience should care. There are several moments like that, when the directors seems to say, "Oh ho! I bet you didn't expect I'd kill THAT character," and instead the audience doesn't really care one way or the other.

The entire film feels like it was taken from a horror movie text book. The writers and director went down the check list of everything a creature movie should include, but they don't quite know how to utilize the convention. For example, a character is killed right at the beginning to introduce the danger. However, it is a character we see for literally 2 seconds before that, and it is in the middle of character introductions. You either start the movie with a death and then start the story, or you weave the death into the story. Don't just show a body in passing. Also, you can't use the technique of trying to be quiet only to make noise more than once or twice. Every character in this film seems clumsy because they always give away their position by knocking into something.

This movie has no drive to it, which means even the good aspects like the few make-up effects we can see or the occasional good chase sequence gets lost in a film that unforgivably drags along. In capable hands, this film could have been a slick little creature feature. Instead, it should be buried.

Terrible Thursday: Intermedio

Intermedio
Starring: Edward Furlong, Steve Railsback, Cerina Vincent, Amber Benson
Directed by: Andrew Lauer

Style: Supernatural
Blood and Guts: 2
Fright Factor: 0
Laugh Factor: 4
Weapons of choice: Crappy CGI spirits, mining tools
Overall rating: Terrible

Welcome to Terrible Thursday. This is the weekly dissection of a terrible film. Something that, if you make it through, you should get a T-Shirt or some sort of medal. Our first offering is one near and dear to my heart: Intermedio.

The movie follows four friends on an ill conceived tour of a tunnel between Mexico and the US. Ill conceived because they never quite explain why this is a good idea. Also, there are random drug dealers down there. Oh, and there is also a murderous old man who controls equally murderous spirits. Well, maybe not spirits. I would say more like poorly executed flare effects with faces on them.

One of the reasons this film is so terrible is that there never seems to be any coherent story to drive it along. These kids decide to go down into the tunnel, then decide to try and rob the drug dealers, then other things happen, and then it ends. It is so bad that when I read the synopsis online to refresh my memory for this review, I thought somebody had seen an entirely different movie. I swore the kids went down there to make a drug deal, not randomly meet drug dealers.

What's worse, Edward Furlong's character appears to be constantly out of breath, as if walking at a moderate pace could result in a combination heart attack and aneurysm. Every line he delivers requires several moments of wheezing and gasping. I kid you not. Cerina Vincent's shirt is constantly shrinking throughout the film, something the movie makers did ON PURPOSE. How cheap can you be? This is how the filmmakers show how "cool" and "self-mocking" they can be. I instead wanted to break their camera hand.

Then there are the filters. It's like the director couldn't decide whether he loved filters or whether they are things you use for making coffee. The opening scene, for example, keeps changing shades of orange because the sun was in various states of setting when they were filming. They have filters to fix that. In retrospect, maybe the director just couldn't decide what color filter he wanted to use. Whichever is worse, that was probably the reason behind it. Then, filters come out of the woodwork, with every underground tunnel feeling like some high schooler's AV project. I was waiting for some scene to be double filtered, as goodness knows there was nothing else to pay attention to in this film.

Finally, the movie ends after a gloriously craptacular death by the old man controlling the spirits (if you use digital blood, you need to be slapped). If anyone can explain the last shot to me i.e. what it means and where the characters are, I congratulate you. I sure as heck couldn't, as it is so tacked on that I expected the next shot to be the director winking at the the camera, saying "Clever, huh?"

This movie is an ordeal. It is a bane to those who stumble across it on TV late at night and don't see just how terrible it can be. Throw it into a chasm. Burn every copy. Just don't watch it.

The Orphanage

The Orphanage
Starring: Belén Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Príncep
Directed by: Juan Antonio Bayona

Style: Supernatural Suspense
Blood and Guts: 1
Fright Factor: 4
Laugh Factor: 0
Weapons of choice: No weaponry used
Overall rating: 5 out of 5

All Laura (Rueda) wants to do is run a home for mentally disabled children with her husband Carlos (Cayo) and son Simón (Príncep). However, her son has never really been around other children and so has imaginary friends as his play mates. Perhaps the orphanage Laura lived at as a child was not the best choice of places to live. On an outing to the beach, Simón meets another imaginary friend in a cave and invites him home. It isn't long before Simón has disappeared and Laura believes that Simón's friend from the cave is instead a ghost who has spirited away her child to be an eternal playmate.

The atmosphere of this movie is unbelievably haunting. There is little music, so all of the creaks and groans of the old house are allowed to work their magic. All of the actors are top notch, which allows the story to be seamlessly told to us. Combine that with some excellent cinematography and you have an excellent backdrop for a supernatural story. Herein lies the strength of the movie: it doesn't resort to hackneyed techniques and cheap scares to thrill the audience. All they do is tell the story and let the natural dread and ominous nature of the film seep into the audience's bones. It is perfectly natural for Laura not to see that Simón's friends may be ghosts, especially when they reveal to him a secret his parents have not told him, and yet the way in which Simón describes everything immediately sets off the spook alarm. This is a great example of how to unnerve your audience without jumping out and yelling "Boo" like so many lesser movies do.

Much like other Spanish ghost stories like The Others and The Devil's Backbone, there are very few moments of horror. Instead, things that happen cause people to shiver for the shear fact that we are afraid of what might happen. That isn't to say there aren't terrifying moments in the film. When the imaginary child first appears to Laura and a sequence involving an ambulance both sent a strong shiver down my spine. All of the pieces slowly fall into place, along with a few red herrings that become sub-plots, and so there is never a sense of expecting what will happen next. Some people may take issue with the ending, but I think it is true to both the characters and the story they are presenting.

Overall, I would say this is a film everyone should see regardless of whether they call themselves horror movie people. It is much more of a supernatural story, and while there are frightening moments, it is nothing that will terrify people for nights on end. The masterful storytelling and the beauty of the film far outweigh any negative aspects.

Diary of the Dead

Diary of the Dead
Starring: Joshua Close, Scott Wentworth, Michelle Morgan, Joe Dinicol
Directed by: George A. Romero

Style: Zombie Horror
Blood and Guts: 4
Fright Factor: 3
Laugh Factor: 0
Weapons of choice: Firearms, biting
Overall rating: 4 out of 5

We all know how it starts. The dead return to life and start treating the living as one big buffet table. The living, at first, think it is some kind of plague. It's still people, right. Finally, after things go beyond control, then people realize that it is in fact a zombie outbreak. This story follows a group of college students caught out in the forest filming a horror film. Upon returning to campus, they find it deserted and the walking dead roaming the streets. Not knowing where to turn, they decide to drive around in their RV hoping to find a safe place in a town that may have none left.

I was thrilled to find out that George Romero was releasing another zombie film. He always has a unique approach to the genre, and even when the films are not that good, they still offer up something that is entertaining and different. Diary of the Dead is admittedly not one of his best offerings. However, I think people have been harsher critics of the film than I think is deserved.

The entire film plays out like a grassroots horror film, with everything filmed through the view lens of two video cameras the characters carry at all times. All of the dialogue is a bit trite and bland, but I attribute it to being much more reminiscent of the YouTube generation of people who no longer need to be articulate and clever. This stems from the movie being much more of a social indictment of the cultural phenomenon of everyone wanting to record everything and post it online. One of the main characters even talks about how, in our rush to all be known, the truth is watered down, as everyone claims expertise but nobody knows who is actually right. As with the Blair Witch Project, the main character continue to film as it allows a distance from the horrific events that occur. I mean, how many times do you see people with cell phone cameras at the scene of an accident? In that regard, I think Romero is spot on.

The pacing is tight and all of the moments well filmed. There are several tense moments, and enough funny or darkly funny ones to really engage the audience. My favorite moment involves a scythe to the head, but there are also a few choice dialog moments too. The entire film is very successful in its tone and quality, though you need to accept going in that you are seeing a large scale YouTube movie with quality effects and an outstanding director.

There has been criticism about the plot and how you don't really get to know or care about the characters. While this is true, I don't think that this movie necessarily warrants that. We are supposed to see what it is like first hand to be in the beginning of a zombie outbreak. By doing so, the filmmaker is able to (sometimes a bit heavy-handedly) discuss the role of media in our lives and also where our society might turn if everything goes bad.

Overall, it is an excellent film to see, if only as the experiment that it is. Once again, Romero has proven that he doesn't make zombie films. He makes films of social commentary that happen to involve zombies.