Hellmouth

Stylized, surreal and thoroughly captivating. If you're looking for a scary horror movie, this isn't it. But if you are looking for something oddly charming, memorable and creepily funny that makes you ask, "Wait, what?!" with each new turn of the plot, this movie has much to offer. (Fans of Dellamorte Dellamore will probably enjoy this.) In my opinion, the only thing that could have improved this movie was a soundtrack by Danny Elfman.

I picked up this movie from my local library without knowing anything about it other than the brief plot synopsis on the back of the DVD case. While it's not one of the worst movies I have ever seen, it's definitely one of the strangest I have seen. And that explains the main problem I had with the movie - it is so determined to be strange and murky that it doesn't give the audience anything to hang on to. The characters are vague; you hardly learn a thing about them. And it doesn't take long for the plot to become all but incomprehensible. As a result, it was hard for me to care about what was going on. Sure, it's visually striking at times, as well as being fairly slick despite what had to be a really low budget. I just wish that the filmmakers had put as much work into the script as they did with the visuals. It didn't come as a surprise when the end credits revealed it was a Canadian movie - it has that Canadian feel as well as pretentious attitude you often get in Canadian cinema. (Though at least the Canadian government's film funding agency didn't waste any of my tax dollars on this particular movie.) Maybe this might have worked as a short subject, but as a feature film it's pretty deadly.

This Constantine (2005) meets Sin City (2005) is a mostly black and white, graphic novel approach to hell. It's glaringly stark cinematography adapts well to the horror filled nightmares of children and the black despair and creepiness of hell. Strangely simplistic in its approach, the fifties element of the despondent detective in the form of a aging, dying, close to retirement grave-digger is caught up in a wrenched dilemma of perhaps having to continue dig his own grave on his terrible, nightmarish job until he dies (his dream of more sunny retirement Florida seemingly beyond his reach). This movie may have been much more effective had it been directed and scripted as an R-rated feature film so that its graphic profanity of a hellish nature and sexual emotional bonding could have enriched and enlivened the movie even more so. The somewhat soft ending can be taken either as a cop out or a refreshing little breath of mental sunshine, probably left up to the viewer. Nevertheless, this movie borders on the ranks of What Dreams May Come (1998) and to a lesser epic extent The Lord of the Rings (2001) in an epistemological (inner knowledge or truthful way).

I'm not a professional but I think this review is fair. *Zero spoilers*

The film reminds me of Dante's Inferno. The main character gets dragged confusingly into Hell, and he basically stares each demonic figure in the face and says "I dont know why Im here, but you dont scare me." The main character definitely hogs the limelight, but he is the perfect person for the role. The pacing is good. What I really liked this movie for though is it's sense of setting. This movie stands out as one of the best uses of budget CGI I've ever seen. I think this movie had almost no budget whatsoever- I saw that their Indiegogo (kickstarter) raised some $2,000 with a $45,000 goal. They got pennies. I couldnt see more info than that because I dont have imdb pro (yeehaw), but they really went all out with the CGI regardless, never shying away from animating some ludicrous demon on screen. That's always a peeve of mine- when they hide the epic monsters in the shadowy bushes etc and try to use the excuse of "oh its all mysterious bc you cant see it yet," when theyre obviously just cheaping out.There were literally only 2 times that I would call the CGI bad: one being some blood against metal (again, only one time this happened), and the other being sadly right at the end, where the greenscreen was painfully obvious. I was really disappointed by that, how they left one of their worst greenscreen shots in right at the end. There was also one small issue with props selection, but Im not going to spoil what it was. Youll probably know when you see it. Other than that though, the CGI is extremely effective dollar for dollar, and it's easy to feel like they really shipped this man and a camera-strapped drone to Hell to shoot these scenes. I also thought the ending itself was kind of bad for being too sudden and how they got there to be the most confusing part of the entire movie, aside from the final scene itself and brief soliloquy which was pretty good. I'd give this movie 7.5, and if you enjoy things demonic then you'll definitely find this a good watch. I didn't think it was too confusing, and it isnt aimless. If nothing else, it was a well visualized journey to the depths of Hell, featuring one bad ass old man, a pretty girl, some interesting villains, and a handful of demons.

I expected to dislike this movie after the first ten minutes and almost bailed. I'm glad I did not. I am not a fan of the "Sin City" brand of cinematography (short depth-of-field actor shots combined with post-production film noir digitization), and originally was turned-off to see it here. However, the story won me over.

Really, this film is a rather traditional fairy tale or allegory set within a digital landscape: that of the Seeker, a man who does not quite know who he is but has been given one last task--here, the order to fill in for another caretaker at another cemetery--that allows him to journey to find himself. Along the way he meets what he thinks is his real purpose--the saving of a ghostly damsel in distress--only to find by the end of the movie that his purpose is much more complicated than that.

The last twenty minutes or so reminded me quite a bit of Bergman's work--"Wild Strawberries" especially--and were well-done in making their philosophical or allegorical "point." Having said all that, I do think this is a movie that could be hard to follow if you just "watch." The post-production digitization is impressive at times, but can also distract from the story-line. I almost feel that this film could be easily adapted for the stage where it would be even more impressive. It really takes place in only four "locations," and would be easier to follow from a dialogue point-of-view.

At any rate, I highly recommend this movie and am considering a purchase for my collection. Stephen McHattie is simply excellent in the title role. As he is the "straight man" to the otherwise purposely "flat" or characterized acting of the others, his was the role that truly mattered. And he was simply excellent.