Soixante-cinq ans après qu'un tueur en série masqué ait terrorisé la petite ville de Texarkana, les soi-disant « meurtres au clair de lune » recommencent, mais une lycéenne solitaire peut êt... Tout lireSoixante-cinq ans après qu'un tueur en série masqué ait terrorisé la petite ville de Texarkana, les soi-disant « meurtres au clair de lune » recommencent, mais une lycéenne solitaire peut être la clé pour l'attraper.Soixante-cinq ans après qu'un tueur en série masqué ait terrorisé la petite ville de Texarkana, les soi-disant « meurtres au clair de lune » recommencent, mais une lycéenne solitaire peut être la clé pour l'attraper.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 1 nomination au total
Avis à la une
This film is really intelligently shot, it mixes in several scenes from the original film while also creating some copycat scenes with different characters, I really enjoyed it. Good acting all around.
That being said this lost a lot of likability with its death scenes, there are several characters with less then five minutes of screen time, yet they leave us thanking the killer for offing them. you'll notice the mpaa rating says it has strong sexual content, I'm not one to really complain about unneeded sex and nudity that being said the sex scenes were really used to degrade the characters.
Overall this was a nice slasher film, fans of the sub-genre will enjoy it. Not a slasher fan? you should probably pass on it.
The whole thing is a bit of a mess. The victims are stupid, the cops are possibly even dumber and the kills feel rushed and never go on long enough to build any real suspense. Numerous times we are introduced to characters only moments before their imminent death. There are two flaws with this, one being that we can be certain that they are going to be victims because suddenly out of nowhere they have been awkwardly brought into the film like lambs to the slaughter, and secondly because we couldn't care less for the characters. We have no connection with them. Similar films like 'Scream' at least put some time and effort into the one scene their victim may have in an attempt to make us feel compassion for the character. That one scene can be enough if done right, but it certainly wasn't here.
The 'whodunnit' side of things is done well enough, I certainly didn't pick it. That's really about all this has going for it though. They really kept the runtime short at 86 minutes. I feel even another five minutes could have done the world of good just to extend some of the kill scenes and build characters a fraction more. It's certainly not unwatchable, but in a genre that has been quite stale for a while now is this adding anything new? I wouldn't have thought so.
But they also had the ambition to not just redo the same horror as every other thing on the shelf but to layer that stage where horror unfolds so that we get the mechanisms that give rise to it. This is a sequel of sorts to the 70s film by the same name that was about the real Texarkana murders that shook the place in the 40s.
So this becomes layered here as events unfolding in a place where gruesome reality of that day is relived each year through fiction, re-entered, thus neutered, through fiction; the original film playing on a drive-in on Halloween night as this one begins. The events aim to relive the original murders so that forgetful spectators will remember again the real impact, this at the behest of a new murderous narrator who fastidiously restages the real thing around town.
The heroine is chosen by him - as the narrative demands - to be the first victim who survives to tell the story, herself an aspiring journalist looking to document truth. So she finds out that it's all happening because a part of the original narrative was omitted in the telling, not given its place in the fiction.
So this is more ambitious than its ilk. One obvious source is Scream. A less obvious is Citizen Kane (don't jeer). The camera tries to swoop into rooms like Welles had it do, there's Kanesque deep focus, even that a journalist is looking to piece together truth from narration we might see as not wholly accidental.
It's not enough to understand Welles as technique he mastered or topics he illustrated though. You must now what for. The filmmaker doesn't so we get obtrusive technique, structure without narrative depth, views without import, in the end it's all strung together in a film schoolish way, and this goes back and even ruins the slasher and sense of place.
It ends with one of the most inane twists.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe character Nick (Travis Tope) mentions that his mother is a patient at "Trans-Allegheny". Trans-Allegheny is the name of a historic mental hospital located in Weston, West Virginia which ceased operating in 1994.
- GaffesAt the beginning of the film, the annual tradition of showing the original The Town That Dreaded Sundown plays at a drive-in. In real life, it is played at Spring Lake Park which is not a drive-in theater. Cars are parked in the parking lot and the audience views the film in portable chairs or on blankets in an open field.
- Citations
Lone Wolf Morales: After our friend kills those kids with the trombone, who does he go after next?
Chief Deputy Tillman: In the movie after the trombone killing there's a double homicide at a farm house.
Lone Wolf Morales: Every damn house out here is a farm house.
Meilleurs choix
- How long is The Town That Dreaded Sundown?Alimenté par Alexa