Horror in the Attic

Edgy? Stylish? Though-provoking?

More like Unoriginal, Stupid, and Confusing. This movie was a monumental letdown, all things considered. For starters, the plot was a messy rehash of several other "successful" movies. The writer must have been watching Fight Club, Vanilla Sky, and the Truman Show on 3 different TVs and thought "Wow, if I could only rip all 3 of these off, I could make the most mind-bogglingly retarded waste of film known to man!" The main character, Noname McNeedsActingLessons, looked like some horribly distorted charicature of George W. Bush. Seth Green, who enjoyed fame in questionably "mainstream movies," figured he could make an easy paycheck with this one by doing a bad Brad Pitt impression from 12 Monkeys. The plot jumps so much from one ripoff to another that I can just see the director thinking, "I can't wait until THIS scene, it'll blow their minds." Why yes, it did blow my mind... I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON! "But it's deep man," says the director, pointing out all the complex metaphors. About as deep as Corky Romano. Ted Raimi's character, apparently commenting on the plot, said it best, "There's too many variables." Yes, Ted, too many indeed.

Skip this one. If you fall into a trap and happen to see it, skip forward to Ted Raimi's scenes. He's the savior to an otherwise convoluted mess of pretentious crap.

Trevor Blackburn is put under psychiatric care after killing his girlfriend and then going into a four year coma. As part of his treatment, he is placed in Love House, a community of nuts hoping to become rehabilitated. But why can't Trevor recall the murder he's accused of?

Other people -- at least two -- have called this a "thinking man's horror film", and I'm going to join them. The events are shown out of order, usually out of context, and even once the film is completed you may or may not have understood everything that happened. At one point, there's even a nod to H. P. Lovecraft, though as near as I can tell, this film has no direct connection.

The "thinking man" aspect is either going to intrigue you or frustrate you. I am a thinking man, as is my friend Seth who watched it with me, and we were frustrated. Had it not been for our man-crushes on Jeffrey Combs and Ted Raimi, the film probably would have been turned off. Now that I've seen it through, I'm curious to watch it again knowing the answers from stage one... but only so I can understand it, not because I think I'll like it.

While Combs and Raimi made the film enjoyable, and a brief Alice Cooper was nice (anyone seen "Prince of Darkness"?), what I really disliked was the actor playing Trevor, Andras Jones. Jones simply can't act for dog snot in this picture, comes off as not knowing his own emotions and more often than not is just lost. I didn't care about him, and as a lead, that's horse apples. His supporting actor, Seth Green (playing "Douglas"), wasn't much better. Green has his moments and this wasn't one of them.

There's some minor gore, some drug use, a fair dose of sexuality... so that's good. And director Jeremy Kasten does a fine job at the helm. One scene follows Seth Green around a game room and is executed flawlessly. This is probably more due to the cinematographer, but regardless it stood out. Kasten went on to make "The Thirst" (which I enjoyed) and the remake of "Wizard of Gore" with Crispin Glover. This was his directing debut, and a job well done.

I picked this film up used for $2.99 on the power of Jeffrey Combs alone, and it was worth that for the viewing... if you can find the same deal, pick it up. Or rent it. Don't buy this one, unless you really want to irk your friends and ruin a good night of drinking. Usually I drink during horror films, and on this one I didn't. Good thing, or I never would have made it through. Thinking man, yes. Drinking man, no.

Promising in some ways. It looks like it might go somewhere - until the last half hour, which becomes increasingly unpleasant and confusing, climaxing in an arrogant or incompetent refusal to explain and fill in the loose ends. The performances and photography are quite competent. Unfortunately, it all collapses like a schizoid house of cards at the end. When it works, it feels like a combination of Suspiria and Jacob's Ladder.

This movie has exactly the right balance between horror and humor and, more importantly, between revealing too much and revealing too little. Some questions are answered at the end, but some are not, and I for one like that some are not. It is not a pat, boil-in-the-bag horror movie. It is intelligent and requires that you pay attention, but it's not as if that's terribly hard to do, because it succeeds in being entertaining throughout. Those expecting pornographic vivisections will be disappointed; compared to movies like "Hellraiser," this film is more rightly classified as "psychological thriller" than horror. It remains an excellent movie, however, and if you don't get it maybe you ought to watch again. Pay a bit more attention next time.

The above tag line is a tip-of-the-hat nod to a previous IMDB user, and I agree. Seriously, I have never read such a deep divide in viewers over a horror movie! I have to wonder about people who call this movie "boring." What do audiences want from horror films today? There is real fear, dread and (most importantly) disorienting. I must agree that many younger minds with short attention spans will not enjoy this movie, but if you were intrigued by 12 Monkeys, Memento, Eraserhead, and other movies you HAD TO WATCH AND THINK ABOUT, I highly recommend this movie. Don't like loose ends? Tough! Want everything explained? Out of luck! But if you read Phillip K. Dick, H.P. Lovecraft or William Hope Hodgson, you will be pleased with this highly literate movie. I am looking forward to more from the director.