Dread

Based on the Clive Barker short story, Dread, which made its world premiere at the 2009 edition of Montreal's Fantasia film festival, is remarkable on two fronts: Barker's striking departure from his traditional macabre story lines, and Anthony DiBlasi's impressive directorial debut.

The story unfolds with two college students, Steve (Twilight's Jackson Rathbone) and Quaid (Shaun Evans), agreeing to work together to create a documentary of people's innermost fears. The two put out a call for candidates and document their interviews on video.

An expert manipulator, Quaid is able to coax these troubled souls into revealing their innermost demons; deeply personal revelations they would otherwise never dream of discussing in public, much less on camera. Meanwhile Quaid harbors deep seated psychological scars of his own, having been a childhood survivor of the brutal home invasion axe slaying of his parents at the hands of a mysterious psycho.

Espousing the belief that by confronting one's ultimate fear an individual will either overcome their phobia or be consumed by it, Quaid convinces the more demure Steve, and friends Cheryl and Abby to participate in the study. Unknown to everyone involved, however, is Quaid's desire to take things to the next level, progressing beyond mere interviews to the actual physical and psychological nightmare of tackling their fears head on.

DiBlasi displays a remarkably talented hand at spinning a yarn that incorporates introspective, character-driven drama and some spectacularly jolting and emotionally moving sequences. While deviating out of necessity from the plot structure of Barker's original story, which didn't provide much "meat" for a feature length film, Barker equally deserves kudos for providing DiBlasi with a twisted tale that is firmly rooted in the real world, where human cruelty is infinitely more tangible and terrifying than anything the supernatural can invoke.

Led by Rathbone and Evans, the young cast turns in uniformly strong, nuanced and intensely emotional performances not typically found in this genre. Among the standouts is Hanne Steen, who plays Cheryl, a friend infatuated with Steve who bears the curse of a disfiguring skin pigmentation that covers a third of her face and body. Steen deftly manages to convey her character's sensitivity and long held pain in a manner that the viewer can readily attune to, earmarking her as a future talent to watch.

As debuts go DiBlasi's Dread is as solid, slick, engaging and thought provoking as it is terrifying, making this a must see, not merely for fans of the genre, but anyone with untold skeletons in their closet.

Three students decide to study people's fears for a video documentary college class as sort of a "fear study". Initially they simply interview their subjects but then one of the students progresses to setting up situations where the subjects are forced to confront their fears.

Pretty much universally positive reviews from horror magazines and websites were given to this film, and I feel bad that I cannot be as supportive. While I think this film has a lot of strengths, and may be better than the average film, it also has some weak points, too.

I have to say the film is very admirable with regards to the gore on the topless dancer, and the dismembered girl in the bed. Other gore scenes were also decent, and there is no short supply of blood, and a special effects that shines beyond the budget. I also enjoyed the gritty sex scene, reminiscent of the style of "Derailed" (though the sex scenes are quite different).

The film as a whole has a lot of sexuality to it, which I find to be a flaw. I liked the painting of nude woman, with the addition of her blue hair, but soon realized it was just he first step towards more and more nudity. Usually, I am the last one to frown on nudity, gratuitous or otherwise. But I felt this film was using it as a crutch, that despite having a strong story, they felt they could not get by on merit alone. And that is a shame.

As far as being compared to recent Clive Barker films, this one is clearly better than "Book of Blood" (which was just boring), and on par with "Midnight Meat Train". I may like "Train" slightly better, but both have their strong and weak points. Barker's original story is roughly 40 pages, including some casual references to Kant and Bentham (and unfortunately Dickens). The film tends to ignore these intellectual touchstones and veers off into more pornographic territory. They do, however, take the "fear of meat" to a new height.

"Dread" was chosen as the 2010 horror film of the year by HorrorHound contributor Dave Kosanke (with Jon Kitley agreeing). Kosanke thinks the film is "primordial and raw" and "even manages to one-up the story". Another HorrorHound contributor, Aaron Christensen, disagreed and felt the film was too long and would work best as an anthology coupled with one or two other Barker stories. Incidentally, he chose "Black Swan" as the year's best.

Thankfully, none of them picked "Harpoon" like Aaron Crowell did (that film had few things right going for it). And I have to agree with Christensen that "Black Swan" easily trumps "Dread" (though I think Adam Green's "Frozen" was also a worthy contender). I would not put "Dread" in my top three for 2010.

I would, though, not necessarily endorse Christensen's idea that this be squeezed into an anthology. While "Book of Blood" clearly ran over its needed time, this film seemed to go over by mere minutes for me. The writer added enough to the original story to really have it stand on its own two legs. I would say that it could be trimmed five or ten minutes, as some scenes just went on too long for me. But it has enough story and depth to really be its own film.

Ultimately I do not see this being one of the strongest films of recent years. The gore effects are amazing, and I hope the crew behind that goes on to bigger things. The cinematography is also stellar. But beyond that, I do not know. I feel it went on a tad too long, and what should have been a story about "dread" became too exaggerated for me. It pushes the level of realism too hard and enters a surreal stage. And that is not dreadful. Psychologically unstable, maybe, but not scary.

This movie was a real positive surprise. It felt both original and well done. Simply a real good movie to watch.

It's perhaps hard to place this movie in any particular genre. Psychological-horror would be the best way to describe this movie. It plays on the deep rooted fears of people but please don't expect from this movie to give you plenty of scare moments, or anything of that sort. It's not really an horror in the classic most common sense of the word. The drama plays an important part as well, which only strengthens the movie its psychological-horror aspects. In that regard alone this movie already works out as an original and interesting one.

But above all things, it's also a really well done film. It has a good build up and narrative, some fine actors and the movie has a good look over it as well. It's not a big budget movie that had a big cinematic release anywhere but you can't really tell that, judging by the movie its looks or just overall greatness. Actually hard to believe that this was the first ever movie for director Anthony DiBlasi, who was also rumored to direct the new Hellraiser movie for a while. He would had certainly been capable of it and he had worked with Clive Barker, the creator of the Hellraiser franchise, before, which was on this movie actually, that got based on a short story by Clive Barker. His approach of the horror and more serious story aspects, which he shows that he is capable off with this movie, would had been great for a new Hellraiser movie.

The movie has a story that steadily but slowly progresses. Yet the movie becomes never a boring or dragging one because it is capable of getting you involved with the characters and their stories. It's a real intriguing movie to watch and because it's being so original, you also can't really predict all the time what is going to happen next in it. No, not everything works convincing or works out as strong and effective as it could had but still this movie feels like a breath a fresh air and is perfectly watchable.

A nice, original, well done little film.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Having watched around 600 horror and thriller movies over the course of the last 20 years. I have rarely come across a horror flick that has the intellectual prowess of "Dread". This is a very well done adaptation of Barkers short story, and has kept the dark and ominous feel of the original.

The cinematography is masterfully done while keeping an almost home movie feel. The flickering lights and dark sets lend an eerily dreamlike feel to the bulk of the movie so that when the brighter scenes appear the contrast is quite stark.To say this movie is disturbing would be an understatement. The decent into madness depicted here is powerfully dramatic and quite intense. Not only is there violence, gore, and blood, but a realistic view of trauma inflicted psychosis becoming complete madness.

The bottom line is this. The ability to suspend disbelief is the cornerstone of any good story and this one delivers in buckets.

While I disagree with your review, I respect your opinion. However, the last line you wrote makes no sense.

You wrote, "We all know already what humans can do to fellow human beings. We don't need to watch it over and over again." Why watch anything then? We all know humans fall in love, so why watch Romantic Comedies? We all know cops bust criminals, so why watch Action films? And Dramas are full of the things we all do as humans, so why watch those?

This film is a solid effort and one of the better Barker adaptations to date. It contains all of the elements of classic Clive; sex, revenge, desire and, of course, blood and bodily harm.

Keep those Books of Blood coming!