A Brush with Death

The girlfriends Amber (Seanna McDonald), Megan (Missy Sturges), Samantha (Lily Vu), Candice (Ali Thurlow) and Hillary (Nikki Cordell) drive their Jeep to spend a couple of days in a mansion that belong to the uncle of one of the girls in San Joaquin Valley, ninety kilometers north of Los Angeles. They run out gas on the road and the pervert mechanic Walter (Ted Esquivel) and his stutter assistant Caleb (Max Taylor) give the necessary fuel to the girls. While parting in the swimming pool of the house, they meet their neighbor Ranken (Nicholls Melancon) and decide to hold a party in the night in the Rue Family Farmhouse, an abandoned place considered haunted where a couple of people had been murdered many years ago. Later the girls find the truth about the place and the locals.

"A Brush With Death" has a bad screenplay that misleads the viewer, introduces a totally new important character near the end and the cheerleaders have the behavior of sluts, but this B-movie indeed is not so bad as indicated in IMDb rating. Actually it is an average slasher low-budget movie, having a reasonable unknown cast with beautiful actresses and a flawed and silly story with a good conclusion. I bought this DVD without any previous reference and when I saw the IMDb rating, I watched this film with a very low expectation, but in the end, I did not totally dislike this movie. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Obsessão Sanguinária" ("Bloody Obsession")

RELEASED IN 2007, "A Brush with Death" is a horror/slasher about five cheerleaders on retreat at a vacation home in the country of California. There's an abandoned house nearby that has an infamous history and the girls are intrigued by it. Meanwhile a couple local guys come sniffing around the girls.

There are three basic types of film: Grade A films are professionally-made theatrically released films, which includes everything from moderate-budget to blockbuster; Grade B films are low-budget movies that are either made-for-TV or direct-to-video and these include independent films or indies; Grade C movies are everything below this, which means they have micro-budgets or no-budgets and have an amateurish vibe to them; they'll often strike you as more of a student movie than a legitimate one. "A Brush with Death" (2007) is definitely a Grade C film.

Sometimes Grade B films can be Grade A at heart because of the hard work and professionalism of the filmmakers and cast, like 2010's "Monsters," which only cost around $800,000 but was so well-made that it came across as a Grade A film (which doesn't mean you'll like it, of course). I point this out because sometimes Grade C movies can theoretically be Grade B films at heart, or possibly even Grade A (albeit unlikely). "Another Kind" (2013) is a good example. It only cost $120,000, but it smacks of a modest-budget theatrical release.

I point all this out because, even though "A Brush with Death" is a Grade C film, it doesn't mean it HAS to be a stinker. With a budget of 200,000 the creators had considerably more resources than "Another Kind." So I viewed it with an open mind in the hope that it would rise beyond its limitations. Unfortunately, it didn't. I'm very merciful when it comes to acting. I don't care how no-name the cast members are, if the acting is satisfactory it'll be convincing; if not, it won't. A lot of the acting in "A Brush with Death" is just unconvincing; not all of it, but too much of it. And some of it is downright laughable. Especially when the gas station man abducts & kills a girl and takes loads of pictures of her and, later, when the five protagonists break down on a country road and the man from the gas stations stops by to offer help. These were the first bad signs and the movie never really recovers from this low-level of filmmaking.

The only reasons I'm NOT giving "A Brush with Death" an F is because there's (barely) enough filmmaking talent here that the story moderately kept my attention for the first 50 minutes or so; plus there are some quality visuals, like the haunted house at night, and a few of the actors aren't bad (like the mentally challenged guy); moreover, a few of the girls are decent: Ali Thurlow as Candice, Nikki Cordell as Hillary and Seanna McDonald as Amber. Blonde Candice is easily the most beautiful, but she's inexplicably gone by the 25-minute mark. The script was really lame in parts and it clearly needed more time to work out the kinks and flush out its potential, like George Romero did with "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). Unfortunately, it was rushed and this shows in the finished product. The flick should have never been released to video because it's that poor of a Grade C "film."

THE MOVIE RUNS 81 minutes and was shot in San Joaquin Valley, which is just east of the Bay Area in Northern California.

GRADE: D (2.5/10)

I have just watched this online under the title "Cheerleaders Blood" but under any name it sucks big time! Five rather dumb cheerleaders spend a weekend break at a country mansion belonging to the uncle of one of them and in the style of say Texas Chainsaw Massacre some of the local hicks aren't very friendly. The acting, script and plot are all bottom of the barrel, the only half decent performance was Max Taylor as a stuttering hick named Caleb but cruelly called The Retard by the locals. Nothing that can be considered horror happens for nearly the first hour, I can't believe that it took three people to write this drivel. Added to the sheer boredom and frustration is the fact that the sound is terrible, at times it was difficult to hear what is being said by the "actors". I have seen worse movies but trust me when I say that this movie is very, very, very poor.

I actually like low budget, usually low rated movies. There is something about them.... sometimes its a mess and laughable. BUT I don't feel like I completely wasted my time viewing this movie. Maybe I would feel different if I paid to see in a movie theater where I was a captive audience. I multi-tasked while viewing. Nothing too important that can be "missed". Not too bad a movie. Now they expect reviews to be ten lines, and although I summed up my feelings about this movie in less, I will take the time to try and balance out the negative reviews just a tad. So I will again say the movie was not to bad in hopes of making enough lines to meet the criteria for a review.

What can I say about this stinker. No acting, no blood, no gore, no nothing. The storyline is a turkey too, why is that man taking pictures from a girl, why is she almost undressed and in the next shot dressed and then undressed again? Who is that guy, supposed to mislead the viewer thinking he is the killer. How stupid are those girls really want to visit an abandoned house were some atrocities happened. 1954 and 1955 back flashes, huh, who are those kids? the names never appear in the movie. The end, what the hell, see it coming miles away. And what about the conversations between the girls, so stupid, you see them wait until one has finished her sentence. This is no acting. At the end, suddenly there is light in that house but still they think no one lives there. No blood flows, just in snap shots that's the best part, some frames included with blood. You never see any killing of effect used. Can it get worser? I don't think so... a waist of time