The Alchemist Cookbook

I knew this movie was going to be slow the moment I started it. Which is why I stopped watching it within 10 minutes in. I couldn't stand the slow pace. I wanted a story to watch! Give it a few months and I'm bored so I throw The Alchemist Cookbook on again as a way to lull myself to sleep. I don't know what I was expecting. I guess I expected this movie to put me to sleep. There's nothing in this movie's story to keep you watching it. There's no hook, there's no deep significant lesson, there's absolutely no resolve; BUT THE ACTING. For one relatively unknown actor to carry this kind of film absolutely blows my mind. The acting of this film is what kept me glued to my screen. After a while I stopped caring what the story was. I didn't care for the script. Watching Ty work wonders with his character blew my mind. It's very rare, at least in my experience, to see movies like this get saved by an actor you've never heard about. This movie was definitely saved by Ty's acting. I wouldn't recommend this movie to a lot of people but that's only because I don't think they would appreciate it. For me the acting alone made this movie watchable. I'm not so sure it would be the same for others.

Interesting study on mental illness, mis-classified as a horror flick. There's little-to-no plot, so horror buffs will be disappointed. But the acting is quite good and the story grippingly sad. Students of psychology will find this more compelling than those looking for jump scares.

Let me try to summarize this film. A man living out in the woods by himself tries to discover, through alchemy, how to make gold while he has a mental breakdown with possible demons knocking at his door. Does that sum it up? I've seen adverts for this film around Hulu, Prime, and other streaming sites but never had the time to turn it on. Well, tonight was the night, bay-bee, and I wanted to treat myself to something off the wall. Boy, did I get it.

Look, this is going to be a hard film to recommend to, well, anyone. It's a low budget indie horror flick with one actor, mostly, and one setting. I get what the director was trying to do, but it's not what he ultimately accomplishes. Because the film isn't trying to be just one thing, it becomes a jumbled mess of several things. A majority of the tension is lost due to comedy interjected between scenes. Some shots are not framed correctly, leaving you with no idea what the character is gaping at. The ending, though, will be the biggest issue most viewers will have with the film.

There are good things about this movie that need to be praise. Ty Hickson (Sean) is pretty good as the lead. The character has a lot of baggage and Hickson pulls it off rather well. Amari Cheatom also adds some well-needed interaction between himself and Hickson, to helps sell how far Sean's mental state has gone.

The sound design was well done. There are disembodied voices hidden throughout, a strange caterwauling coming from off-screen, and some solid foley work. All these build great tension and adds to the mystery of, "is he finally losing it or are demons real?"

As I said, though, this movie will be a hard sell to casual audiences. There's a good movie in here, but its rough edges need to be polished, which includes the last 15 minutes of the movie. As it stands, you have to love the craft of storytelling and/or film-making to get the most of this. If you're looking for a traditional horror movie you need to look somewhere else. If you're looking for something a bit more experimental, I say give this film a shot. I'm giving this a 6 out of 10, closer to a 5 than a 7.

Suffering from delusions of fortune, a young hermit (Ty Hickson, GIMME THE LOOT) hides out in the forest hoping to crack an ancient mystery, but pays a price for his mania.

When I saw that Joel Potrykus was the film's writer-director, I was immediately on board. His last feature, "Buzzard", really struck a nerve with me, and I feel a sense of pride that an upper Midwest filmmaker is making a go of it. In my review for "Buzzard", I noted a connection to Richard Linklater's early work (particularly "Slacker"). Perhaps Potrykus is following a similar rise to fame as Linklater: Allegedly, this is the first time Potrykus has not used an HDSLR or Super 8 camera to shoot his film, and the film quality is noticeably improved from earlier work.

We are dropped in to the middle of "Alchemist", and the early scenes leave us with some questions – who is this man and what is he up to? We quickly pick up on his independent, punk rock mentality. But is he crafting bombs, Unabomber-style? Perhaps this is a wilderness meth lab? The title is a clear allusion to the Anarchist Cookbook, but what does that mean? And what awful incident caused his leg injury?

The sparse cast allows Hickson a showcase, demonstrating that he is not just devastatingly handsome, but a superb thespian to boot. There is not a single scene without him, and in many scenes he is alone and has only gestures to emote with. In a little over an hour, Sean (Hickson) goes from wildly elated, to terrified, to menacing. If the Academy watched independent films, they would take note. Interestingly, as paranoia sets in, Hickson acts more like Joshua Burge did in "Buzzard". Does Potrykus script it this way, direct his actors this way, or is it a coincidence? Regardless, with Burge going on to appear in "The Revenant" and "20th Century Women", Hickson would probably be quite happy to follow his lead.

Amari Cheatom (DJANGO UNCHAINED) offers a bit of comic relief as the wannabe gangsta Cortez who has "got the good stuff", including a VCR to play such awful movies as "Red Heat" (not Schwarzenegger's finest moment). Although Cheatom is the supporting actor to Hickson, he still shows some acting chops in the second third of the film. (Then again, not knowing Cheatom personally, playing the gangsta could have been an impressive acting feat, even if he is very much a one-note character.)

The film has been described as "Evil Dead" meets "Walden" meets Jim Jarmusch. The "Evil Dead" comparison is actually quite fitting, as both could be described as films about a young man alone in the woods of Michigan who is forced to battle demons. The "Walden" aspect is self-explanatory. As for Jarmusch, I still prefer to think of Potrykus as being in the Linklater mold. For me, nothing can be Jarmuschesque unless it is black and white and Tom Waits appears in some capacity. (Yes, this is a very narrow definition, but that is how I envision the quintessential Jarmusch film.)

As is his wont, Potrykus defies genres with "Alchemist". On some level, it is clearly horror, because it involves conjuring demons, some bloody body parts, and a scene that will make you wince at the threat of finger trauma. But this is unconventional horror, really more of a story about mental illness with horror overtones. Think of William Friedkin's "Bug", for example. Horror? Yes. But not in the sense that we have comes to define that genre. Heck, the connection to the proverbial alchemist even hints at fantasy elements.

Critic Dennis Harvey explains, "Fans of absurdist indie comedies who find themselves watching a quasi-horror pic are likely to be happier than horror fans who find themselves watching an absurdist indie comedy with a demon in it." As a fan of both, I concede that Harvey makes a valid point. Indie fans (especially fans of "Buzzard") will find much to love. The die-hard horror crowd, however, might find themselves confused or even bored by the lack of action. In this sense, the film becomes a Rorschach test: it is as much about what was created as about the expectations the viewer brings with them.

"The Alchemist Cookbook" premieres at the Fantasia Film Festival on July 20, 2016. If you enter the theater with an open mind and without your preconceived notions of what a fantastic film should be, I suspect Joel Potrykus will be adding a few more members to his growing fan base.

All I'll say is that you'll spend the whole time waiting for an amazing ending to happen, when in reality, you arrive at one of the stupidest, most aggravating endings of all time. This movie tries very hard to be a slow boil with the increasingly erratic and psychotic behavior of the main character. Mixed with constant scenes of his clearly degenerative mental state accompanied by his drastic actions, this leads the viewer to believe that the climax will be worth putting up with watching him lose his mind. In reality the entire movie is just a repetitive piece of garbage. Had potential and I can appreciate the actor's dedication and convincingness while portraying a man having/causing his own psychotic break, but unless you want to be incredibly aggravated when the credits roll, go ahead and choose something else.