anthonyender

I really hate giving this film a lower score, and not only because it's got a lot of those as of this writing. It really doesn't deserve ALL the negativity it's getting. I won't speculate on why so many reviewers seem to have problems with the characters - a group of predominantly gay individuals - or why they can't understand how they could be friends etc. The film actually does a good job of distinguishing them, and defining relationships, and I enjoyed the first half while they were being established. I prefer horror films that allow us to get to know the characters, and I give credit to the writer/director for doing a better than average job at it. And the performances from the main cast are all good, with some actors I'd like to see more of. That's pretty rare for such a low budget endeavor.

But once we cut to the detectives at a crime scene it stumbles so badly it is almost impossible to recover. First, the actors are bad. And then what they are saying is so poorly written it makes one question who wrote all the other scenes. Nothing about these scenes (and there are more than one) works on any level. Cops walk through blood trails; detectives jump to the most spurious assumptions; forensics can show up and be done in a few minutes and the chief behaves in such an unprofessional manner the only excuse would be if we are supposed to think he might be a suspect. And then once the action starts happening the film's other weaknesses stand out even worse. Technically there are some weird sound problems and some bad music choices. Weak editing becomes glaring during moments of violence as it tries to cut around budget, effects and stunt deficiencies and fails miserably. The staging and story crumbles; it sets up the murderer in a blatantly obvious fashion which is then treated like it's supposed to be a surprise. Characters run away only to have the killer repeatedly pop out in front of them as if he's teleporting or as if they are only going to the places where the killer is waiting for them. The enthusiasm I felt during the first half hour waned during the next half hour and then crashed. My score dropped from a 7 to a 3, but I'll settle for a 4 because the first half was refreshingly believable. If the filmmaker sticks with character pieces I'd be willing to give them another chance, but if its a genre piece where the attention to staging, logic and style makes the difference between something good or the huge amount of rubbish out there I might not bother.

If you're okay with a flick that is "fairly good" and "almost works" then you might give this one a shot. It's a simple set-up, super low budget with only three actors in one setting (and some driving scenes) and for the first two thirds is where it qualifies as "fairly good". With only three actors it's a shame when one of them struggles more than the others, but one of them is pretty good so it balances out. The location is visually striking although the director doesn't really take advantage of it, and it held my interest for the most part. The weak link was definitely the screenplay. The characters aren't consistent (which only makes sense for one of them) and the dialogue is spare and rather bland. There's not enough being said or done to make a truly gripping psychological thriller, it more or less just plods along. But I kept watching, waiting to see where it would go, but unfortunately it completely falls apart at the end. Basically the script doesn't really do anything with it's set-up and then everybody starts behaving stupidly just so there can be an actual climax. For two thirds of this short little flick it couldn't commit to being a mystery, or a character piece, and then in the last ten minutes tries to be all of the above, plus maybe a thriller, maybe a crime flick, maybe a supernatural thingy, maybe a symbolic representation on the impossibility of truthful relationships. It was a 6.5/10 until the climax then I have to drop it down to a 4. But you might be more tolerant.

This is now, officially, my personal pet peeve about most movies: they have a lot going for them in a very narrow, familiar genre fashion, but then waste it by not making any effort to be original, or intelligent when the plot or action finally kicks in. As if it doesn't matter what they do after a certain point, as if anyone watching the film won't care if it's stops making sense or becomes so downright stereotypical and bland and DUMB that it's kind of an insult. This film starts fairly good (for such a well worn genre convention: city folks go into country and find danger), nothing exceptional by any stretch but the actors do alright with rather dull characters, the cinematography is amazing and the countryside is awesome. Pretty by the book (one character is "strong" and overcoming cancer so you might guess who's gonna survive) but I was interested. They even make a point of what amazing negotiators these folks are so I was expecting that might come into play when they run afoul of the local loonies. But no. It actually just gets forgotten and how they behave from their first meeting on is basically guaranteed to allow the stupid, predictable plot to unfold after that. Very quickly the best thing about the film becomes the interplay between the locals which is amusing in a believable fashion and, thank god, not played broadly for laughs! Their performances are also the best, and if only the script didn't let them down when it came to what happens this film might have been a real winner. They had everything they needed to make a successful genre entry except the ability (or willingness) to fix a mediocre script that falls apart in the last half. It's one thing to suggest the city folks are ill equipped to deal with survival at this level (see Deliverance) but this movie just has the characters become idiots. If you don't consider a directors job to include caring about the script, or character actions, you could say it's still handled well enough but all the good points the film earned in the beginning are wasted.