Would You Rather

Sadistic wealthy people always spell trouble for the downtrodden or down on their luck. 13 Tzameti, Hard Target and Hostel are all good examples of the wealthy torturing and killing the less fortunate for the purpose of their own entertainment.

The latest such cinematic example is Would You Rather. Starring Brittany Snow (Pitch Perfect), Sasha Grey (my personal hard drive), Robb Wells (Hobo with a Shotgun), and John Heard (Home Alone), Would You Rather gathers a group of strangers for a wealthy aristocrat, played by Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator) who pits his guests against each other in sadistic games where they have to choose between two options – each of which can either cause pain or death to themselves or another guest.

So guests are put in awkward positions of having to decide whether to electrocute themselves or someone else or whether to whip a guest or stab another. Attempt to leave the game and you will be shot. Take too long to decide on the lesser of the two options and you will be killed. The goal is to become the last person standing and the reward differs on the needs of each individual.

The main character to which the movie focuses around the table is Iris (Snow). She agrees to be part of the unrevealed game in an effort to provide for her ailing brother. She is the first to be tested with an offer to eat portions of a steak in return for $1,000 (being a vegetarian, it was a tough decision). But as the evening draws further, Iris and the others will be forced to make decisions inflicting unspeakable pain towards the other participants.

Stealing the movie is Combs. He commands a presence at the top of the table and his evil is believable in large thanks to his charismatic and demented portrayal of sadistic Shepard Lambrick.

The movie doesn't offer a lot of 'What would you do in the same situation'? There is little hope or much choice as the game progresses. Still, the script by Steffen Schlachtenhaufen (Primal) is interesting enough in various character developments.

Not likely to make many Top 10 lists by year's end, Would You Rather still offers valued entertainment and a few good self-inflicted wounds along the way.

www.killerreviews.com

And as confusing as that may sound, I stand by it firmly.

Would You Rather's main plot lines have been done time and time again... Helpless protagonist struggles with own morals after being thrust into a lose-lose situation.

Been there. Seen that.

But that being said, Would You Rather is an extremely well made movie in the realm of cinematography, character development, and pacing. No cheap thrills or gore-for-the-sake-of-gore here -- which in itself is always refreshing when it comes to modern horror movies.

There were a few unique twists and turns, but not enough to call it a strikingly original feature.

I would still recommend this as a watch, if only on a day you can't find anything decidedly better and really need to get your horror fix. Not entirely unsatisfying, but not as effective as it would have been if only a bit of originality were at play.

People don't seem to really like this movie, but I think that's because it shows us a side of human nature we don't really want to see. In the ultimate position of chosing to help others or throw them under the bus for our own sake, most people don't want to admit which choice they'd take. An excellent film that shows us that our morality is ultimately as flexible as our circumstances dictate

Desperate to help her ailing brother, a young woman (Brittany Snow) unknowingly agrees to compete in a deadly game of "Would You Rather," hosted by a sadistic aristocrat (Jeffrey Combs).

There are two issues I have with this film that I would like to get out of the way from the beginning: first, the complete implausibility of the whole thing. The plot assumes that none of the guests told their friends or families where they were going, and that somehow everyone involved can keep quiet about the events. This seems beyond the realm of possibility, but for the sake of the story, I would let it slide.

Second, I have mixed feelings about the score. While some of it was excellent, other parts seems very repetitive and overpowered the film itself. I might even go so far as to say it deserved a better rating if the music was toned down.

That being said, there are plenty of good things to say about the film. The overall concept is very chilling, and far more disturbing than the average horror film. Some might put this in the "torture porn" subgenre of horror, but I felt like it never sunk to the depths of "Hostel" or the later "Saw" films. If anything, the structure was more like "13" (2010). These are events that could happen (again, if we ignore the overall implausibility) rather than a man who stalks us in our dreams.

The doctor subplot was excellent, and well-scripted. It was possibly the best part. Jeffrey Combs was nice to see, actually getting more than a cameo. Stealing the show, though, was Sasha Grey, an actress who made her name in the adult film business (the one in a million who an successfully make the transition). Her character (Amy) is the wild card that brings the situation towards complete chaos, and that is where the game gets challenging.

No masterpiece by any means, but with the right editing, this could have been a slightly stronger film. Either way, it was still better than half of the movies I see...

Would You Rather takes an interesting look at a common children's game, playing it for the delight of a rich man with far too much money. The plot tells a story of a young girl whose younger brother lives with her after her parents have passed on, leaving nothing but mounting debt. Her brother is dying, her house has been sold, and ever job lead seems to fall through. One day somebody offers to pay for everything and find her brother a donor, at a price.

This being said, the piece was decently acted, standouts being that of Sasha Grey and the always delightful Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator). The movie found ways to make you cringe without ever resorting to full on sight gore, the worst parts were left heavily to the imagination. This was a film that actually benefited from a lower budget, seeing that in a heavy budget one might be forced to see the over usage of all the stunts.

The movie is certainly not without its faults, first and most prominently is the lack of a decent score. The film never really utilizes music to draw you in, which is especially noticeable at the beginning and end of the film. The ending also felt so flat that it could hardly produce sympathy from the audience, an attempt to cater to the twist-necessitating crowd that has been delved since Saw's low budget first film hit our eyes. Unfortunately, it is such a negative that it makes one wonder if the whole damn first 30 minutes of the film were worth anything. This also repeats itself with a worthless subplot involving the doctor. The amount of filler placed within this movie alone degrades it, and unfortunately tampers an otherwise great horror gem to unnecessary viewing.

For all the gripes, though, the film does its job when it finally gets there. If I were to simply judge the 2nd act of this film it would get an easy 9, however, that being said, I believe a 6 is not only fair but accurate.