Baghead

The movie features a single shaky cam. This is not because the movie is independent, has a low budget or is part of some dogmatic dogma-movement. Well these three could all be true, but the main reason of a "shaky cam" is that it has relevance for the story, similar to a movie like Blairwitch Project. If you expect fast camera movement, multiple angles, supreme lightning and great special effects you shouldn't watch Baghead at all (and people should not devalue it because it doesn't look like the new Spiderman). So be prepared for primitive (but still quite amazing) photography.

Furthermore no one should watch this movie because of the suspense. The suspense is only a minor aspect of Baghead. From time to time it tries to scare you by being as real as possible. Occasionally Baghead succeeds in doing so. Although the average person would feel conned if I tell him this is a thriller or a horror. It is more close to a real life drama.

Personally I truly appreciate the endeavour to create a real movie without all the modern techniques. Techniques that so bluntly tell you you are watching something produced. There is no real score, no atonal violins at scary moments, no special effects and so on. Without this kind of tools a lot more weight is put on the acting and the story. The question then is: does the movie survive the lack of all these elements? Yes.

The acting is surprisingly refreshing. Although Greta Gerwig (playing Michelle) annoyed me from time to time. The story itself is not original but the characters are convincing, there are many interesting twists and there are reflexive side aspects to the story that lift it far above the average kind of "some people in a mountain shed getting scared" movie. Most importantly the whole movie has a natural flow without any scene feeling constructed for one purpose or the other. If you plan to watch this movie then watch it for the real and convincing manner it is brought to you, not for suspense or Hollywood skills.

In my view the colossal problem of Baghead though is the editing. It appears that all footage was neurotically and compulsory preserved in the final film. Quite often entirely predictable scenes drag on and on. Though they may look more real so to speak (for instance the scene where Chad is trying to hit on Michelle), they get one ready for bed immediately, no teeth brushing required. Especially the final scene is horribly slow and you can really hear yourself thinking: "get a move on all right!" In total the movie runs for about 2 hours. In general I like slow and long movies, but this one could really do with a 1:30 running time. It would not just be easier, faster and more accessible, it would have simply been better.

Verdict: 6

So this is 'mumblecore'? This is the first 'mumblecore' film I've watched and on this evidence, it's unlikely I'll watch anymore.

I was hoping for a silly horror film parody, something similar to the recent and infinitely better Rubber featuring a nasty rubber tyre that likes to blow peoples head ups with the power of its little rubber mind.

Unfortunately, though Baghead does feature a guy who stands menacingly outside four friends' cabin in the woods with a bag on his head, it also features no surprises, not much of a script and DV cinematography that just seems downright lazy.

Beginning with a preachy bit about still being able to make good films on a very low budget, it then proceeds to prove that it doesn't matter what size your budget is, you need some likable characters and some interesting plot developments that aren't obvious about 10-20 minutes before they are revealed.

I guess this might be likable if you like 'mumblecore' films like Funny Ha Ha and In Search of a Midnight Kiss but after this I won't be in too much of a hurry to seek them out.

If you fancy an unconventional, silly horror film... go watch Rubber... NOW!

I went into this (AFI) film festival with little or no knowledge of not only the film itself, but of any actors or the production and direction team. I was pleasantly surprised.

I must have laughed through 90 percent of the film. On what appears to have been a shoe-string budget at best, this film delivers characters who are rich (in a non-financial form), full and funny; and come across as people you know. Your best friend (or nemesis)a sister, brother. I also loved that, having grown up close to the Adirondanck Mountains in NY, I could completely imagine living the weekend that they did. What a fun ride. And using very little shock and awe of nudity, vulgarity or violence. (not that I am completely anti any of those in particular) A very nice treat. What a little sleeper-hit. Can this brother director/producer team be the next Cohen Brothers?

I liked 'Baghead' a lot. It was real, it was independent and when it was all over, it all tied in. If one were just to watch it part of the way through and stop, they would (as would I) certainly compare it to multiple "in the woods/cabin" thrillers. The impression I got (and this was certainly confirmed once watching the "mock-interview" with the directors/brothers with kids) was this was a simple idea someone brainstormed and said "let's shoot a movie about no-name/wannabe actors and a bag-headed killer on the loose in the woods." Honestly, the film felt real. The emotions real. I think, despite the extreme low budget, the actors took it for real and did the best job they could. I grew up on serial killer/woods, etc films. This one was probably the most real, because, basically it was played that way. A movie-within-a-movie, if you will. Four adults want to make a movie. One has a cabin and they head out there. They come up with an idea and suddenly it comes to life. That's the basic synopsis. I see a whole bunch of negative reviews. I think people were expecting something different. I went in open minded, and really liked the experience. Not perfect, no, but I liked the genuine characters and I absolutely loved the fact that two grown men could be very close, enough to kiss/hug each other and not be labeled as gay or feel any less masculine. I wish there were more straight males (fictional or not) that can show love for each other and not be considered homosexual. I admire the directors/brothers that took the leap to show this close male bond. Best character: Chad (Steve Zissis.) Sincere, not shy, real and definitely funny. Hope to see more of him.

Baghead starts as if it has a bag over its head with a leaden set up about four not-so-young struggling actors planning a scriptwriting session in the woods. Not hard to tell what might happen in a comedy/thriller/horror indie. But amidst this sophomoric, satirical first reel is a gem of an interview with a director after a film festival screening. You'll know the drill when you see it: inane questions, uninspired answers, but everyone breathless with love of movies.

The invasion of a bagheaded villain creates the necessary horror tension nicely dispersed among the revelers rather than relegated mainly to the ladies. Although the idea of actors writing a horror script and living it out, and directors making fun of the genre is not new, the Duplass brothers create a believable environment that makes the odd occurrences believable themselves even amidst the obvious hokey horror clichés.

It's easy enough to see Blair Witch influences, especially the "found" nature of the footage; its ultra-low budget, seemingly improvised script, jerky cameras, and little-known actors put it square within the "mumblecore" frame of reference (The Duplass brothers are prominent members of the movement). Baghead has more importance as part of that early twenty-first century movement than the film would attest on its own.

Be prepared to laugh a bit, scream a little, and wonder a whole lot at the dedication of talented filmmakers who could put bags over their heads for all the difference it would make to the general audience. They are the real pioneers of new cinema.