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.

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.

First off this movie isn't for everyone. That's for sure. It's challenging and never gives the audience what they expect. The director has somehow made something that doesn't feel like a genre film, but includes elements from past and present supernatural films. It's got a timeless quality. You're never quite sure what's real and what is not. There are moments of genuine fear, and moment of genuine laugh out loud humor. But it's never easy. I almost feel like it needs to be watched twice. Moments come and go, and I know there's much more going on here than I could have caught the first time through, that's for sure. It's layers of paranoia and the effects of mental illness. No cheap shots, no jump scares. People may dismiss it, but there's a lot going on here.

It feels like something I've never seen before.

I'm not quite sure where to start...

I couldn't tell you of a time that I was more disappointed with a movie.

At the beginning, this movie burns slowly with very little dialogue.

As a new character is introduced it sucks you back in for a brief moment.

Little context is given to the purpose of the main character and his mission. However, it is apparent that this movie has something to do with mental health.

This movie had potential to be very scary but it did not deliver for me.

The acting wasn't terrible though.

Give it a try, make your own decisions and steer clear of the flock.

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.