Completely unsuccessful mix of horror and comedy; more weird than funny
"Lumberjack Man" is a weird, boring stab at a horror comedy that is unsuccessful.
Of course it's not funny in the least, but how many comedies are?
The fact is that the comedic moments, if that's what they are, are handled so badly that they merely become confusing.
It's not enough to throw in a joke here and there. There's also the matter of tone which allows a person to actually identify the joke and (maybe) laugh at it. "Lumberjack Man" has no tone. Nor does it really have a sense of place - the "summer camp" setting is a mainstay for both horror movies (Friday the 13th and its infinite number of rip-offs) and comedies (Meatballs, Happy Campers). But the filmmakers fail at establishing it as a believable place. It feels like most of the action takes place a few miles from the camp anyway. This vague sense of place doesn't help.
The movie is, of course, also not scary in the least; it doesn't even really try to be, which is not a problem because no one sees a slasher movie expecting scares. What is a problem is the villain. I don't know what they were going for, but it's one of the least memorable villains I've ever seen in a slasher. It's the typical massive stunt man (and being big does not equal scary) with a face like a block of wood.
The explanation for the killer's presence and how to do away with it is, I guess, where the humour comes in. Michael Madsen gives a monologue, complete with an animated sequence, to provide an explanation so moronically bizarre and out of step with everything else in the movie that I couldn't bare to pay attention. It has something to do with pancakes and syrup?
This is where the problem with the tone comes in: it's nowhere near ridiculous enough to absorb a sequence like this into the rest of the movie. It doesn't make you laugh at the ridiculousness: it makes you shake your head at the weirdness, and then, of course, you wonder what the filmmakers were thinking, or even if they were. You start trying to formulate explanations for how the movie went so wrong.
The ending, where this stupid origin story comes into play, is as badly done as you'd expect. I didn't know what was supposed to have happened, but I did know, with one hundred percent certainty, that it had no hope at all of ever being presented adequately by the people who made this movie.
The movie does have quite a bit of nudity (all breast shots). It does the typical thing of having multiple pretty, likable actresses, none of whom provide the above shots. And, weirdly, when the ladies do disrobe, the movie turns into a sexy music video with different music, lighting, dancing. Of course, this only distracts you.
As for the "kills", one is fairly memorable: the camp manager is cut in half at the waist, and watches his lower body run away from him.
Of course it's not funny in the least, but how many comedies are?
The fact is that the comedic moments, if that's what they are, are handled so badly that they merely become confusing.
It's not enough to throw in a joke here and there. There's also the matter of tone which allows a person to actually identify the joke and (maybe) laugh at it. "Lumberjack Man" has no tone. Nor does it really have a sense of place - the "summer camp" setting is a mainstay for both horror movies (Friday the 13th and its infinite number of rip-offs) and comedies (Meatballs, Happy Campers). But the filmmakers fail at establishing it as a believable place. It feels like most of the action takes place a few miles from the camp anyway. This vague sense of place doesn't help.
The movie is, of course, also not scary in the least; it doesn't even really try to be, which is not a problem because no one sees a slasher movie expecting scares. What is a problem is the villain. I don't know what they were going for, but it's one of the least memorable villains I've ever seen in a slasher. It's the typical massive stunt man (and being big does not equal scary) with a face like a block of wood.
The explanation for the killer's presence and how to do away with it is, I guess, where the humour comes in. Michael Madsen gives a monologue, complete with an animated sequence, to provide an explanation so moronically bizarre and out of step with everything else in the movie that I couldn't bare to pay attention. It has something to do with pancakes and syrup?
This is where the problem with the tone comes in: it's nowhere near ridiculous enough to absorb a sequence like this into the rest of the movie. It doesn't make you laugh at the ridiculousness: it makes you shake your head at the weirdness, and then, of course, you wonder what the filmmakers were thinking, or even if they were. You start trying to formulate explanations for how the movie went so wrong.
The ending, where this stupid origin story comes into play, is as badly done as you'd expect. I didn't know what was supposed to have happened, but I did know, with one hundred percent certainty, that it had no hope at all of ever being presented adequately by the people who made this movie.
The movie does have quite a bit of nudity (all breast shots). It does the typical thing of having multiple pretty, likable actresses, none of whom provide the above shots. And, weirdly, when the ladies do disrobe, the movie turns into a sexy music video with different music, lighting, dancing. Of course, this only distracts you.
As for the "kills", one is fairly memorable: the camp manager is cut in half at the waist, and watches his lower body run away from him.
- Groverdox
- Jul 10, 2016