Claustrophobia

Having enjoyed writer/director Mark Tapio Kines's debut film FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS, I was ready for something in the same vein -- haunting, sardonic, even lyrical. Fortunately these qualities are evident enough in CLAUSTROPHOBIA to confirm that it's the same creative mind at work. What the film truly delivers, however, is pure and simple paranoia -- an intelligent and very creepy thriller that inventively plays with genre conventions. All of the basic ingredients are there: a house with three cute young women trapped inside (Mary Lynn Raskjub is the most watchable for my money), a faceless killer with a signature weapon, a couple of unfortunate bystanders. It's what Kines does with the material that gives the movie its hard edge. The action plays out in real time, in the suburban neighborhood next door, and -- a counter-intuitive but surprisingly effective move -- almost entirely in daylight. The pacing favors slow terror over shocks, remorselessly closing the walls in around the characters (hence the title). There are no "rules" governing who lives or dies: as in real life, the violence is jagged, haphazard, and mutely disturbing. The surprise ending is a "banality of evil" twist worthy of Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT or Terence Malick's BADLANDS. Altogether a fine journeyman outing from a filmmaker who gives spooky detachment a good name.

The script was good, a lot of the photography was good, but the lighting was abysmal. There was no effort to correct the differences in exposure between interior and exterior. The acting was a little mannered. I assume that the movie was shot digitally. The editing was very effective in some sequences and less than good in others. It almost seemed that the editor occasionally got bored and quit trying. If I seem overly critical, let me hasten to add that the movie had more good qualities than bad. However, the bottom line word is "amateurish." It really wasn't worth the hassle of driving to Culver City and shelling out five bucks.

I visited Los Angeles recently and saw this movie when my buddy invited me to a hollywood premiere. I wouldn't have commented on it if not for the grossly misleading review on this page which was obviously written by someone responsible for the "film". I was horrified within minutes... and confused. I couldn't understand why something that looked like it was directed by my 12 year old brother was being played in an actual movie theatre. But, I kept watching and gave it a chance. I still regret that decision. The ensuing story and dialogue were so unclear and boring that I was hoping someone would shoot me with an arrow... one through each eye... hopefully killing me. Shockingly, this "horror" movie about girls trapped in a house by an unseen mass murderer takes place in the middle of the day in a suburban residential area. There is no suspense, no tension, no horror, no movie.

I've seen some bad movies in my life time, but this movie is one of the worst. What surprises me the the most is that it got distributed outside USA. You can clearly see that this movie is made by amateurs, first of all the lighting is really bad, at one point you can't even see the person being film because the sun whites out the camera. The acting is bad, the dialogs are boring, and scenes are drawn out to make the movie longer (at least so it seems) Another thing is the sound effects. the plot in the movie spins around a serial killer going after three girls in a house. Most of the time the killer is on the roof. This results in footsteps on the roof.. But the footsteps sounds SO wrong. It actually sounds like someone walking on dry snow, only there is no snow. There are some good things about the movie though. Sheeri Rappaport who plays Gina actually plays a credible character, and at the end of the movie they manage to make it a bit scary, and for a minute your not sure how it's gonna end.

It's great that new directors get to make movies, and i understand that these guys have a limited supply of money. But distributing this around the world is ripping people off. Luckily i didn't have to pay to see it.

Claustrophobia (2003)

** (out of 4)

A small neighborhood in Los Angeles is struck in terror when a maniac starts climbing on people's roofs and shooting them with a crossbow pistol. The town is in a panic and the police don't have a clue to what's going on because the killer doesn't have a motive and no clues were left at the crime scenes. Thankfully three girls decide to throw a slumber party and the killer just happens to show up. With the darkness falling, the three girls must find a way out of the house.

You might remember this movie under its original titles of Claustrophobia but no matter the title the film really isn't worth troubling yourself with, although there are a few interesting aspect that die-hard horror fans might want to check out. The most interesting thing is that actress Judith O'Dea makes her first screen appearance since her role as Barbara in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It's somewhat shocking she didn't do any films between these two but here she is in case you want to know what she looks like today.

The rest of the film really doesn't have enough interesting aspect to get any sort of recommendation but I do think director Mark Tapio Kines could make a good movie given a good cast and a higher budget. The film was shot digital and to me this is a death kiss to many low budget films because it's very hard to build any atmosphere and that's a problem here. Another issue is the actual look of digital and for a low budget horror movie, the graininess and ugliness of video can always make for a more interesting movie but again, this here is lost when you're shooting digital.

Outside of that, the basic story isn't anything new and you'd be better off renting the campy The Nailgun Massacre or the cult favorite The Slumber Party Massacre since both films serve the genre a lot better. I'm sure while making these types of films the directors are aware of previous low budget films that made their debut on VHS back during the 1980's. With that in mind, why on Earth are these direct to DVD titles coming out so lame? Fans of those 80's classics enjoy them because while the stories aren't the greatest, the film at least gives you some good gore and pretty girls taking their clothes off. I'm going to guess Scream made nudity politically incorrect but this film here isn't going to be opening in two-thousand theaters. To make up for the budget perhaps these directors should start delivering the goods.

The performances are expected to be bad but the ones here are even worse than you'd expect from this type of film. None of the characters are written good enough to where you actually care for them so it becomes rather boring watching them talk and trying to survive when in fact you're hoping they'll quickly be bumped off. Another issue is that they don't say anything interesting. Apparently the director (who was also the screenwriter) was trying to build up suspense in their talk but this doesn't come through because the girls say nothing interesting. Throughout most of the film they simply say did you hear that? which gets old.

Even with all of that, I'd almost recommend the film due to the director being able to capture a few jump scenes. I won't give the scenes away but there's one involving a window that made me jump and that isn't too easy to do. Another highlight of the film is the sound effects of the killer walking on the roof. This is a very simple effect but the director makes the most of it and it does manage to be a bit creepy. There's really nothing new or original in this flick but I respect some of the effects the director was able to create.