Chillers

I don't recommend this movie to anyone although my uncle is in the movie I must say this is not the best. Well this might be close to the bottom 100. Like I said this movie is not scary at all, it put up a good try but couldn't make it. So don't see it.

Horror is the genre, but not exactly the effect this movie evokes. Not an "even" film (pacing, transitions) and very reminiscent of the 60's B horror flicks, but it has some stellar moments. Those moments captured something that made me recall the grand horror movies that, as children, our neighborhood gang would plot all week long to watch on the TV's Friday night horror show. For nostalgia and some craft, I give it a score higher than many others.

This was a really tough one to rate. I want to say that it's a crappy film that happens to be pretty good, but that might only make sense to a select group of people who have already seen Chillers. If I try to better pin down what I mean, I suppose it's that the performances in the film tend to be terrible, the directing and editing tend to be awkward at best, and the film tends to have a structural problem overall. On the other hand, the stories tend to be pretty good, the film tends to be impressive for its budget level, and one tends to sense a lot of passion and ambition from the crew and cast. I said "tend/tends" a lot above. That's not just because I don't know what the hell I'm doing as a writer--it's because none of those things are absolutes. For example, the acting tends to be terrible, but it's not always. Some of it passable. Some admirable. Really, it's difficult to say exactly why Chillers is a crappy film that's pretty good, but I'll try to flesh it out more.

The plot, on the "forest" level, is pretty simplistic. Late at night, a group of five strangers end up in a backwater bus station in West Virginia. Because of travel delays, they have missed their connecting bus and they're going to be stuck in the lonely station for hours. To pass the time, one of the five, Lindsey (Marjorie Fitzsimmons), tells the rest of a bizarre dream she had (we see her dream in "real time", so to speak--she's sleeping when we first meet her). Mason (Jesse Emery) then says that he also had a bizarre dream the night before, and tells the rest. It turns out that each passenger had a strange dream with similar themes. Thus, Chillers is constructed as an anthology film. Each dream is a short horror story that we see acted out in "real time".

So on a "trees" level, the five-fold plot (six, really, if we count the bookends) is a bit more complex. Lindsey's dream has to do with zombies and a pool. Mason's has to do with psychos and a camping trip. Sharon (Laurie Pennington) tells a dream that involves vampires and her infatuation with a news reporter. Ronnie (Jim Wolfe) dreams of being able to bring back people from dead. And Professor Conrow (David Wohl), an anthropologist, dreams of lecturing about the supposed Aztec god of war, Ixpe.

The fact that Chillers is an anthology film, with five different stories plus bookends told in less than 90 minutes, creates some problems. It makes the stories feel a bit incomplete. The potential isn't realized. Each segment is a pretty good story, even if director/writer/producer Daniel Boyd runs into some roadblocks as he tries to tell them, like the music video/romance sequence of the swimming pool tale. But it feels like he's shortchanging his ideas. Each segment could have easily been developed into a feature. There are plenty of untapped avenues in each.

Maybe that's being a bit unfair, as we could argue the above for most anthology films. But with a film like Twice-Told Tales (1963), or Creepshow (1982), none of the segments feel unfinished or untapped. In Chillers, the rapidly changing stories make it difficult for the viewer to become immersed in the film, and the basic idea of each segment is good enough that you want to become immersed in that world.

Of course, it doesn't help that the performances are so uneven. Some dialogue--for instance, most of the conversation in the bus station--tends to sound like amateur actors reading their lines for the first time. It's even more surprising given the patches of competence that shine through. Maybe it's just that at this budget level, it's not easy to even get everyone to show up on the same day, forget about extensive rehearsals. In light of this, though, it's amazing just how many extras are floating around in some scenes--there are tens of extras in both the pool segment and the college classroom segment.

At times, Chillers can become unintentionally funny. It is firmly ensconced in a 1980s ("fashion") style and vibe, which became dated and ridiculous quicker than just about any other decade. It doesn't help that the pool segment, which is first up, is mostly unintentionally funny. It's full of people that you're not sure you want to see in a bathing suit, and they're supposed to be aspiring professionals. Swimming burns off a lot of calories. If you're trying to be a professional, you don't tend be extra-"thick" or have a lot of cellulite (or a big Whitesnake hairdo).

It also doesn't help that Boyd used such a mishmash of music. The score ranges from super-sappy 1970s After School Special-sounding tunes to Path Metheny and Jaco Pastorious-influenced songs that are actually pretty hip. The problem with such a wide range is that it further undermines any aspirations for tonal or atmospheric unity .

The best segments are probably the camping and Ixpe stories. I can't say that either are scary, as I don't think that any films are scary, but both of those segments are at least well constructed, have good usage of locations, better acting (which is more remarkable in that three of the five actors in the camping segment are kids) and they're both somewhat creative. The bookends are probably a close third in quality, even with the rough dialogue delivery in the middle.

But no one watching Chillers is likely to be expecting Hamlet. Or, they'd probably prefer Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. (1991) to Hamlet. While Chillers isn't quite as outrageous or gory as many fans of low-budget cheese-horror would like, it's worth a watch if you're into the subgenre. Just make sure you go in with zero expectations.

Quite enjoyable and never dull. I like the fact that this movie has a bunch of little movies in it so that it never gets boring. All the little movies are good, none of them suck.

My favorite, however, is the first one with the diving ghost guy. I love how all the people who ever died in the pool are there. I never thought I'd see a horror movie about a guy who died in a diving accident. It was so odd that it made me smile the entire time.

This film is made exciting by creative and original stories. I love the story about the newsman who ends up being a vampire. It makes sense that a newsman would be a vampire because he only works at night! And the rebelious little kids in the woods are great, they have the best lines.

Truly creative stories with a campy/humorous side. This movie is a keeper.

My review was written in November 1988 after watching the feature on Raedon video cassette.

"Chillers" is a so-so example of regional horror filmmaking, heading to the home video market in time for Halloween plus theatrical exposure on its home turf at the West Virginia film fest.

Five-part anthology resembles a road company version of classic "Dead of Night" with folks waiting at a bus station, soon to be en route to Hell where there's definitely room for one more.

The passengers' tales, punctuated by plenty of blood but unimaginative makeup effects, include a young girl romancing a diver who actually died five years ago. Another woman falls for a tv newsman, imagines him talking back to her through the tv set and ends up involved with vampires. Most elaborate fantasy deals with the Ixpe demon of the ancient Aztecs, but suffers from cheap, unconvincing sets.

Lack of interesting twists and absence of name actors sink this one.