Recovery

The opening scene portends deeply disturbing notions by way of nasty, misogynist themes and violence. Thereafter the pacing is terribly slow - if we apply the model of conventional narrative structure, the "rising action" is mostly a flat plateau barely distinguishable from the "exposition," and more than half the runtime has eclipsed before it truly feels like the promised "horror-thriller" content is again showing up. This is rather troubling, but in addition: Is it just me? Did I have an abnormally unremarkable experience growing up in western Pennsylvania? Or are early scenes wholly unbelievable as the chief characters - high school students - drink alcohol and do drugs at massive parties, go out to clubs, apparently put all their personal information on social media, hang out with total strangers that they've only just met (online no less), and more?

In fairness, once the narrative does very belatedly pick up, 'Recovery' is duly engaging and executed pretty well. The cast is solid, the production design and art direction are splendid, and even lighting is employed notably well. I very much enjoy Giona Ostinelli's robust original music that lends strongly to the mood of any given scene. Director Darrell Wheat illustrates fine capability, especially in the latter half, and there are swell if grisly ideas in his story and the screenplay written with Kyle Arrington. The blood and gore look great, and the brutal violence, and I appreciate the hair and makeup work generally. Truthfully, at its best this is really well done, and I appreciate the obvious hard work that everyone put into it.

Would that the feature were a bit more mindful and balanced from the get-go. Half the runtime, about 40 minutes total, could probably be chopped up into only half its length without losing any substance. The excellence in the second half actually makes up a bit of ground for the weak start - a surprising "recovery," if you will. But the fact that there's anything to compensate for in the first place is an issue. When all is said and done this isn't half bad, and deserves a soft recommendation on account of its strengths. Bear in mind very necessary content warnings for not just significant violence, and specifically violence against women and associated themes that are all too real. Provided you don't mind when your horror-thriller entertainment is distinctly less than perfect, you could do a lot worse than 2016's 'Recovery.'

'Recovery' drew me into seeing it, with a cool poster/cover, an intriguing and quite creative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for horror. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.

It is sadly however yet another film seen recently, hence some reiteration because the exact same strengths and flaws are here present in those films, that to me was incredibly disappointing considering its potential which it doesn't do anywhere near enough with. 'Recovery' is very weak, with a plethora of problems (fairly big ones too) and doesn't do enough with its potential, which was hardly small. There are however a couple of decent, even good, qualities in 'Recovery'.

Lets start with the positives. The scenery is atmospheric and spooky, despite the rather direct to video schlocky way it's shot and edited, it was very clear that the film was made in a rush with no care or enthusiasm.

Best thing about 'Recovery' is the opening, which was attention grabbing and kept me hooked. Which is why it is such a shame that 'Recovery' went downhill so drastically.

Going on further to the negatives, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it feels vague, under-explained in the last third where the film especially became duller, more predictable, more senseless and less scary. Too many characters are too sketchy and with nowhere near enough to make one want to endear to them. Their irritating and illogical decision making and behaviours frustrates.

Making the film feel bland and forgettable with not enough heart put into it. The effects are ropy at best, the sound quality is obvious and utilised cheaply (being too loud in the build ups and people's reactions) and it's best not mentioning the lumbering acting.

Dialogue can be stilted and rambling while the pace goes to a standstill after the promising opening and drags on forever, never recovering. The second half is interminable. Found too many the supposedly shocking moments not surprising or scary and the supposedly creepy atmosphere dreary, due to the excessive obviousness and the lack of tension and suspense.

A lot of 'Recovery' has underdeveloped plot elements and often nonsensical and confusing character motivations, while too many of the things to make you jump or shocked are far from creative or scary and are pretty tame. The ending makes the film finish on an incomplete and confused whimper.

There is not enough threat here and what there is of it tends to be used poorly, while the psychological elements are unimaginative and are more odd than scary, completely failing to show the horror of the subject. Some badly sagging momentum too. The direction is pretty leaden, got the sense their heart was not in it, and the music doesn't really fit.

Concluding, very weak. 3/10 Bethany Cox

But well done as far as production. I guess you just gotta run with it. Pretty good acting. Pretty unbelievable storyline. It's worth watching for a laugh.

NOTE: I was given a screener copy of this film for the Dark Discussions Podcast.

Reverse home invasion films seem to be a thing this year. Films like Intruders and Don't Breathe tell tales of people breaking into the homes only to find something horrible waiting for them. I am sure there is something significant in that.

Unlike those other films, in which our protagonists are criminals trapped by bigger threats, Jess (Kirby Bliss Blanton), Logan (James Landry Hebert) and Miles (Alex Shaffer) are relative innocents drawn into a spider's web spun by the suburban equivalent of TCM's sawyer family.

How effective you find the film will likely depend on how much empathy you have for the teenage characters (Jess is about to graduate High School), who mostly act like teenage characters; in search of a good time, they lie to their parents, experiment with drugs, cheat on each other, and spend too much time on their phones. It is telling that the characters spend much of the film looking for Jess's phone, with little concern over the fate of their new friend Kim, who vanished along with it. Still, in a genre that is still grappling with how to deal with new technology in old tropes, using the phone as bait to draw in victims is inspired.

The film is a slow burn - though only 82 minutes long, more than half of that is spent leading up to the confrontation between Jess's friends and their would-be abductors. Once they arrive at the death trap that is the antagonist's home, there is still much Scooby Doo style investigation that takes place before Daddy gets home. Much of the action in the house is confusing, and I never got a handle on it's layout, but I suspect that was the director's intent.

Once the action does take place, I found the violence to be more authentic than stylish, with a few moments of good practical gore, and I rather liked the Phantom of the Opera tension between Jess and Edward.

The plot of the movie was interesting but kinda basic the same time. Actually, that movie was about the dangers of technology. The characters were basic stupid teens. The storyline was just ok. The kills were nice. The location was so creepy. The plot twists were unpredictable but not so good. Anyway, it's not a bad movie, it's watchable. But, probably only once.. In my opinion, sometimes their decisions were so stupid, that probably some of them deserved to die.