Rachel's Attic

Although the premise for this movie sounded interesting enough, I was not expecting a whole hell of a lot. The basic plot of a woman going undercover in the world of stripping/porn/S&M has been done to death in b-movies especially during the heyday of the 80's. I have seen this so many times that I figured that it would be yet another retread of a sub-genre that has already seen its best product but I was pleasantly surprised as this was a more mature take on the genre that focused more on the story than extended nude scenes. Although I am not one to complain about abundant nudity, it was interesting to see this type of story told from more of a mystery angle rather than a T&A angle. We have plenty of examples of the latter from companies like New Horizons back in the day.

Rachel Nord stars as Rachel, a lawyer who learns of the death of her dominatrix sister by way of a video that was recorded when the death footage was aired on television. Rachel decides to investigate the murder on her own and befriends another dominatrix named Simone (Alicia Bewernitz) who shows her the proper way to use a whip and introduces her to the people who run a local adult establishment called "The Playground". In a great audition involving the role-playing of a substitute teacher, a naked guy in a chair, and a hammer and nail, Rachel proves herself and is invited to continue to work at the establishment. Things get a little weirder in a sequence that is a twisted take on a scene from Alice In Wonderland as Rachel does what she feels she needs to to find the truth behind her sister's death and whether or not snuff films really exist.

I always enjoy it when a filmmaker makes an effort with a bit of style to compensate for a low budget. This can elevate a run-of-the-mill thriller that we have seen a million times to something much more interesting. Through the use of 16mm film, digital video, and thought placed in angles and editing (such as split screen and some black and white footage), the filmmakers have succeeded in giving us a film that goes by quickly and deviates from the usual plot skeleton of a film of this nature. This is helped immensely from the performance of Nord who effectively portrays a woman who is able to immerse herself in some strange situations due to her drive to discover what happened to her sister. We also have a psycho involved who is killing off various sex-trade workers by tapping into their televisions and filming himself in real time as he breaks into their house and murders them all while they are able to see what is happening on the tube. This was and original and frightening concept and one that I have never seen before.

My only complaint with the movie was a number of flashbacks to the childhood of Rachel and Emily that I found to be unnecessary. These sequences did not have any relevance to the story as far as I could tell and seemed like more of an excuse to cast Gunnar Hansen (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) rather than move the story forward. For the amount of time that Hansen is in the film, they could have fit him anywhere in the film and it would not have been so distracting trying to figure out why these sequences existed. Still, this is not a big deal and it did not detract from my enjoyment of the film. There were also some sound issues in a few scenes where the dialogue sounded different than the rest of the film. Though this was noticeable, it was not bad enough to cause too much of a concern to the viewer (especially when you are used to much crappier sound from the shot-on-video days of J.R. Bookwalter and E.I. Cinema in the early 90's).

Nord has not done anything of note since this film aside from a role as a waitress in Zombie Honeymoon. We get nude scenes from Bewernitz and Kathy Gauthier as well as a few decent yet restrained gore effects. (Josh Pasnak, 9/3/06)

I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.

So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.

Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.

The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.

For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).

I saw "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them.

I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee.

Terrible acting, terrible plot and shot like a very cheap soft-core porno. I just finished watching it and I have no idea what the point of the movie was. The FCC suddenly becoming hard-core investigators (instead of someone like, oh, the police?), some random child-kidnapping/molestation flashback thrown in the middle, and did I mention terrible acting? Granted, the over-arching theme of snuff films stays consistent, but that's about it. There is no flow between scenes, I'm not sure what the purpose of the Alice in Wonderland scene was, but I guess most of the scenes are that way. The fact that this movie is listed as a thriller is an out-and-out lie. The music made an attempt to elicit a spooky atmosphere, but failed miserably in the face of a terrible script. I wasn't scared, I wasn't thrilled, I wasn't even grossed out by the blood and guts. I was bored. What a waste of my life.