Chatterbox

It's hard to argue with a business strategy that's proven to work. Similar to Samuel Z. Arkoff's American International Pictures, whose success spanned the 1950-1970s, ITN Distribution specializes in micro-budget products aimed at a somewhat lowbrow audience willing to overlook rather obvious compromises of quality. However, whereas AIP films typically cost $200-300K & grossed a few million dollars, ITN products are often budgeted for less than $50K & go straight to VOD & retail DVD outlets.

While a few ITN distributed films feature known actors such Nicholas Cage (Grand Isle) or Lance Henriksen (Paranormal Island), much more typical is a product made by novice actors/crew with an investor pitch that surely goes something like, "Dude, my dad has a creepy looking cabin behind his house. We should make a scary movie!" Unfortunately, Chatterbox is this latter kind of ITN product.

In his second project for ITN, writer/director Ben Patterson returns with another cast of amateur actors & crew and a half-baked script about a group of six friends who encounter a killer while renovating an investment property. Patterson & cinematographer Pasternak's inexperience is on display from the start. Rather than a felicitous opening ala Cabin in the Woods, Friday the 13th or The Burning, Patterson's bar scene character-intro plays like a funeral dirge, with weak dialogue, lagging conversation, apprentice editing & stiff acting.

These actors do not fit together; they are simply not believable as friends, much less collaborating investors.

Furthermore, none stands out. There is not a quirky nerd, a tough jock, a brainiac, or a nympho among them; they are all so similarly bland & useless that it is no small relief when they start dropping out. Only veteran thespian, Tony Manders, in the tiny role of detective, provides any hint of a sympathetic character.

The abandoned investment property is a fine setting for this tale, but director Patterson inexplicably shuffles us - and the entire cast - through every single room with an "And this here is the bedroom"-style tour of the facilities. It's also obvious that the house is actually on loan to the filmmakers: The six friends arrive at the location under the pretense of fixing it up to sell, yet after a whole day of "renovation," there are zero visible improvements, save for some sweeping. Given the dilapidated state of the property, "A couple of hours work will increase its value," should have been played for comedy, but that would require actors comfortable enough to be funny.

With an estimated budget below $10K, Pasternack's equipment seems to consist solely of a single Blackmagic or RED video camera and a fixed tripod, as nearly every shot is static. There are no dolly shots, and only in a few brief chase scenes toward the end does he go handheld. Similarly inappropriate for the tone here is his over-reliance on medium and establishing shots. Apparently he feels the need to include as many cast members as possible in each shot. An awkward example of this is the first kill where instead of a follow-tilt to reveal the killer behind, he opts for a static parallel two-shot that ruins any surprise.

Sadly, this isn't the only moment we see the killer too soon when it would be more effective if we didn't see him at all. In one scene we see the killer needlessly close a bedroom door, when it would have been more suspenseful had we, like the protagonists, not known who closed it. A struggle could then ensue to open it, building tension that could climax in a jump scare when the door is ripped open from outside by - not the killer, but - another friend. Instead, the characters simply walk over and open the door. "Must've been the wind." That's not drama.

Similarly, the second kill would have been more effective if we didn't witness it. Had we discovered the death later when the camera revealed the lifeless body with open eyes, this would have been quite a shock. Alas, no such luck. Given the story and setting, Patterson & Pasternack would have been wiser to adopt a giallo POV.

Unfortunately, the amateur dialogue, bland characters & poor style choices in Chatterbox sabotage what could have been, in more capable hands, a decent giallo-thriller. The slow pace, superfluous footage and deliberately-lethargic credits crawl stretch the morass out to just under 74 minutes, which is easily twice as long as necessary. So while ITN follows the successful AIP low-budget formula, with its famously-targeted audience of 19 year old males, they need to search harder to find the next Roger Corman. They should start by insisting on a solid script.