Angel

When a girl goes missing near an infamous abandoned town, an investigative team is hired to search the dilapidated area to find her or, at least, what happened to her, as well as other missing people.

"Angel" (2018) only cost $12,118 and was helmed by a native Kentuckian. I've seen spare change budget Indies by aspiring moviemakers filming in their beloved regions that are so amateurish they're unwatchable. Thankfully, this one has enough positives to make it a fairly entertaining viewing experience; that is, as long as you can roll with some stilted acting and a few unconvincing (to be nice) action sequences.

What's good about it? The eldritch woods and rundown factory in the fall make for a great setting, reminiscent of "Death Tunnel," minus the snazzy editing (that many viewers found confusing and irritating). Furthermore, the cinematography, score and sound quality are all professional. On top of this, the stunning Talia Schade as Selina is almost worth the price of admission. Unfortunately, she's removed from the proceedings too soon; I would've preferred her being one of the final girls, like Piper or Mya. Speaking of Piper, blonde Cameryn Zupon is worth a mention in the feminine department, although her acting needs work.

Besides the questionable acting and lame fight scenes, critics might complain about some elements of the script, but the writer/director respected the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces together. For instance, how does the serial killer, Vance, work into the proceedings? Why is so-and-so alive at the end? How does the antagonist have the strength to do what this person/thing does? Think "Memorial Valley Massacre."

Considering the non-budget, it's amazing "Angel" is a watchable as it is.

It runs 1 hour, 36 minutes, and was shot mostly in Louisville, Kentucky, but also rural areas southeast of Lexington, such as Irvine, Slade, Stanton and Richmond, as well as Frankfort, which is between those two cities.

GRADE: C-/C.

What's good about Angel? The picture quality is excellent. Locations are, in the main, interesting. The musical score is relevant and interesting. The plot premise could, under other circumstances, be passable. And, well, that's about it.

What's not so good about Angel? The cast. I'm certain that they gave it their all but the cast are uniformly inept. Everything from blocking, where the actors stand in a scene, to line delivery has student project written all over it. (Blocking is, admittedly, the directors job.)

Angel does establish a benchmark of sorts for politeness. Actors repeatedly and courteously wait for each other to finish lines before delivering their own. This leaves awkward silences scattered throughout the films 97 minutes.

The acting is stilted, very self-conscious, and so the characters unbelievable. Some cast members are better than other, Bradley A. Myers, might develop but he will need to avoid these types of films.

Even so, and as Dorothy Parker was said to observe of Katherine Hepburn, the entire cast generally run the full gamut of human emotions all the way from A to B.

The plot? After a massacre the remaining residents of the gentle town of Raven Rock pack-up and leave. Despite the abandoned town being securely locked random people start disappearing within its confines. A journalist and her friends investigate the disappearances. Written by Cheyenne Gordon and Tory Jones there is enough meat in this for a much better film.

Without giving too much away, there is a monster; a cheaply costumed, clumsy, and generally regrettable monster.

Tory Jones, the director has a bit of history in micro-budget genre films and has earned applause for some efforts. Angel is not an applaudable film. This project was crowd funded. The same cast and crew were in another Tory Jones Indy, The Wicked One, in 2017. It is a marginally better film with a not dissimilar plot. The point is, Jones et al can do it! Make a credible'ish' film that is. This makes Angel just that bit more disappointing.

From the get go I could tell it was going to be a low budget film, but decided to keep going as some low budget movies can surprise you... And that it did! It surprised me how comical it was!! I could not stop laughing at how bad the acting was, was to dramatic. The fight scenes in the last half hour of the movie were some of the worst I've ever seen! There was no way that you could have missed that when editing the movie. You can clearly see they weren't hitting each other at all and there was no sounds when they hit each other. I could not stop laughing, it was the worst horror movie I've ever seen and horror is my favourite genre. If you're looking for a movie that is so terrible that it's funny, definitely watch it. Oh and I read some of the reviews by horror buffs and I'm confused at whether or not we are talking about the same movie... Because this was terrible, nothing stood out to me as being great about any of it.

This movie was in need of a lot of help. The premise was good but the acting was HORRIBLE!!!! The stupidity factor was the highest possible. These kids need acting lessons immediately!! I gave it a 2 for the premise.

It was kind of horrible, the acting especially was some of the worst I've seen. The premise started off okay, but the longer the film went on the more it made no sense, and it turned into a bit of a mess plot wise. It tried to add too much. I think it could have been a lot better with some editing. Some of the lines in the script was awful.

The picture quality, and location was nice though. Nothing wrong with the sound quality either.

The music was so corny and repetitive to the point it was annoying. I think it also got rid of any tension the film could have had. It didn't even feel like a horror film.