The Girl in the Photographs

Sadly, horror movie maestro Wes Craven died of brain cancer on August 30, 2015. The final film in which he was personally involved was "The Girl in the Photographs" (R, 1:35) (as an executive producer). That movie was first shown publicly at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) barely two weeks after Craven's death, both events marking the end of his 45+ years in the film industry. Although he did some work in other genres, Craven is best known for his innovative and popular approach to horror. Among his cinematic creations are the original versions of "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes", which led to the "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Scream" franchises, as well as other sequels and remakes of some of his early films, so they could be updated, and then discovered by new generations of horror fans. Whether you like it or not, "The Girl in the Photographs" (directed by Nick Simon, written by Simon, Oz Perkins and Robert Morast) represents Craven's last direct contribution to horror cinema. So, I guess the questions we have to answer now is what IS there to like about the film, and what… not? Colleen (Claudia Lee) is a bored grocery store cashier in the small town of Spearfish (in west central South Dakota). She's about 20-years-old, pretty, and in a rut. Collen has that job, a weasley jerk of a boyfriend named Ben (Toby Hemmingway) and… not much else. She feels like her life is going nowhere fast and there's nothing worthwhile on the horizon, but her life is about to get a lot more… interesting.

One ordinary morning when Colleen is the first employee to arrive for work, she finds an 8 ½ x 11 inch photograph in the middle of the store's bulletin board. The photo shows a young woman who appears that she has been brutally murdered. Naturally, Colleen immediately takes the ghoulish pic to local law enforcement, but Sheriff Porter (Mitch Pileggi) tells her there's nothing he can do based on that one picture, which might show nothing more than someone's sick sense of humor. "No body, no crime," is how he sums up the situation. He's right, but she grows increasingly frustrated. That photo was only the first of several Colleen finds. They get more and more gruesome, but there is still no evidence of a crime. Besides, Colleen has not been threatened in any way and there's always the possibility that the pictures have nothing to do with her and aren't even for her… until one ends up on the windshield of her car.

Peter Hemmings (Kal Penn) is a Los Angeles photographer who specializes in artistic and often disturbing images. He reads about the very upsetting photos on the internet. Peter's upset too, but not about the subject matter. He's upset that he didn't think of it first. He takes the photographs as a personal affront. He doesn't know who the photographer is or why he would be taunting Peter, but Peter is sure the photos are aimed at him. He was born in Spearfish and, well, he's a famous photographer, so… this has to be personal… right? Peter decides to head home for a photo shoot that will top this "dead model look", as he calls it. His entourage includes his girlfriend, Rose (Miranda Rae Mayo), his long-suffering personal assistant, Chris (Kenny Wormald) and a couple models. They pile in and head for South Dakota.

In Spearfish, world's collide! (Can't you feel that??) Peter and company rent a big cabin in the woods and when they go to the local supermarket to pick up some supplies, they meet Colleen. Peter likes her look and rudely tells the more diplomatic Chris to ask her to the house for a party. Colleen tries to invite her best friend, Jill (Eva Bourne), but can't get a hold of her. Oh, well. Colleen doesn't have anything else going on and this Chris guy is kinda cute – and a lot nicer than Ben. Meanwhile, we meet some of the other residents of Spearfish. There are these two guys named Tom and Gerry (Luke Baines and Corey Schmitt) and they like to take pictures of women. When they discover a new model they… oh, no you don't. Nice try, but you won't get any spoilers out of me. I guess you'll just have to watch the movie.

"The Girl in the Photographs" is smarter and more fun than a lot of people give it credit for. The premise is original and interesting. The cast could have been better, including the "bad guy" characters who were menacing, but should have been more so. However, Kal Penn stands out with his over-the-top version of the quintessential rude and self-important West Coast artist type. Simon's direction is a bit too loose and short on scares. The script should have kept more of its secrets until later in the story, but the clever and surprising ending mostly makes up for that shortcoming. The movie is well edited and very well shot, owing to the fact that the cinematographer, Dean Cundey, also shot the entire "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" (for which he got an Oscar nod) and the original films for two classic Hollywood franchises: "Halloween" and "Jurassic Park". In short, this movie's execution is hit-and-miss, but its basic story is right on target. I'll even go so far as to predict that this one will gain some more fans when it comes out on video. Somewhere, Freddy Krueger, Ghost Face and Wes Craven are all smiling… crooked, wicked smiles, but smiles nonetheless. From me, "The Girl in the Photographs" gets a "B+".

The trailer looked good. The premise was interesting. The actual film itself...well...I just kept hoping for it to end or at least provide SOME sort of creepy factors. This movie may work for some but true Horror and Thriller fans will be disappointed. If you can get past the obnoxious and facetious character of one of the main actors well you're definitely more patient and forgiving than me. He was absolutely AWFUL. Condescending...and much more. Horribly written character. In addition I was very discouraged by the police and how they handled certain situations. Finally this movie may as well be re-named "Masked Stabbers" trying in some way to perhaps be like Scream (but failing miserably). I am not sure how this film garnered 5/10...definitely beyond me. Pass.

This film drowns in monotony as it ultimately leaves the viewer in a literal state of "can they please just kill these people so this film can end" for an extended amount of time, mostly the last twenty minutes of the film. Losing patience to such a degree means that all feeling for the cast has been lost or in this case never felt to begin with, this is obviously a big problem for a horror film when even the fate of the innocent young lead(Claudia Lee) loses importance. Nick Simon fails to create any atmosphere throughout as well as suspense and tension. There may have been a few small jolts of electricity, but they dissolve almost instantaneously.

Despite being well produced, shot and acted with lots of pretty faces and even some nice T&A, this film just doesn't succeed in being what could have been a more engaging horror flick had some serious editing and script adjustment been applied.

But in the end I'm still a horror junkie and I have to judge the overall package against it's fellow B horror competitors and there is enough here to possibly warrant some degree of entertainment for those with the same genre affliction, there were some OK kills and to be completely honest the picture the killers leave for the girl in the final seconds was brilliantly done, though a photo cannot undo the overall average plot and mundane feel to this film.

I will pretty much watch anything to give it a chance, especially horror movies because they're my favorite. But, I can't believe I'm still watching this movie right now it's awful lol. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen but it really is a 3 for so many reasons. The worst part about the movie is the acting. It's comical! It's baddddd lol. The main girl has no range of emotions but she reminds me of Ashley Benson (and I wish it would've been her maybe it would've been better then). Also the model who's the "gf" of the photographer was sooooo annoying!! The story just sucks. I only like the photographer because he's an idiot and has a few good lines in it😂 I would say you might enjoy it if you're bored though. Plus it's free on Netflix at least!

After having just seen the other Oz Perkins-written 2015 horror film February, and adoring it, I was hoping for a similarly well-crafted film here, with a nuanced screenplay which dares to contribute to the horror genre in new ways. Got the opposite - an extremely low-concept, poor execution slasher. I hope he follows the path of that other film in the future.

A grocery store checkout clerk keeps having mysterious photographs of murdered and mutilated women left for her to find around her workplace and other locations. Seven of them so far. The cops think it is "art" so they don't bother doing absolutely anything about it (what?) at any point, even after the girl is stalked (what?). Then some famous photographer and his posse of models comes to town because he's "inspired" by these photographs, and wants to recreate them. Then slasher.

I'll just get the biggest problem out of the way - this slasher has absolutely zero tension. I feel like it tries to heavily borrow from better films, but achieves only lifeless recreations which fail to understand how to create tension. Most obviously this was clearly inspired by the Strangers, down to the masks. So expect a LOT of scenes that make zero sense if examined from a "why would anyone do this other than for the camera" perspective. Like the villains just lurking randomly in the background and appearing and disappearing and so on and so forth. On top of that, the setups are SO common that the viewer is always five seconds ahead of the characters in peril - you will be able to, with 100% accuracy, predict every single time a villain will appear and disappear in the background. Every, single, time.

The characters were supposed to be funny (I think), but weren't my cup of tea. The secondary cast were decent actors, just not given much to work with. The main actress just looked annoyed throughout the entire film. Her range was "very angry" to "only moderately angry". The villains were just awful. Were they going for farcical? They seemed to do random creepy things for the sake of it. It was just an amalgamation of one dimensional "gross" ideas to try to convince us of how deranged the characters are, which just made them comical and a parody.

The nail in the coffin was the final scene."Horror 101", obvious from the beginning, standard "last chill". This movie did not take itself seriously at all and it did not bode well for the concept. It wouldn't be a bad concept if developed further, but should have tried for a serious and tense tone, because it could have been far more interesting.

Upsides? Decent gore, and two or three funny lines hanging on for dear life in an otherwise mostly-witless sea of dialogue.