The Alchemist Cookbook

Let me try to summarize this film. A man living out in the woods by himself tries to discover, through alchemy, how to make gold while he has a mental breakdown with possible demons knocking at his door. Does that sum it up? I've seen adverts for this film around Hulu, Prime, and other streaming sites but never had the time to turn it on. Well, tonight was the night, bay-bee, and I wanted to treat myself to something off the wall. Boy, did I get it.

Look, this is going to be a hard film to recommend to, well, anyone. It's a low budget indie horror flick with one actor, mostly, and one setting. I get what the director was trying to do, but it's not what he ultimately accomplishes. Because the film isn't trying to be just one thing, it becomes a jumbled mess of several things. A majority of the tension is lost due to comedy interjected between scenes. Some shots are not framed correctly, leaving you with no idea what the character is gaping at. The ending, though, will be the biggest issue most viewers will have with the film.

There are good things about this movie that need to be praise. Ty Hickson (Sean) is pretty good as the lead. The character has a lot of baggage and Hickson pulls it off rather well. Amari Cheatom also adds some well-needed interaction between himself and Hickson, to helps sell how far Sean's mental state has gone.

The sound design was well done. There are disembodied voices hidden throughout, a strange caterwauling coming from off-screen, and some solid foley work. All these build great tension and adds to the mystery of, "is he finally losing it or are demons real?"

As I said, though, this movie will be a hard sell to casual audiences. There's a good movie in here, but its rough edges need to be polished, which includes the last 15 minutes of the movie. As it stands, you have to love the craft of storytelling and/or film-making to get the most of this. If you're looking for a traditional horror movie you need to look somewhere else. If you're looking for something a bit more experimental, I say give this film a shot. I'm giving this a 6 out of 10, closer to a 5 than a 7.

This movie rules. Potrykus wanted to create an atmosphere of instability and hostility, and he did. The movie is well-written, well-metered, and it's a charming little pseudo-satanic romp. Don't listen to the baby brains on here crying because they didn't get it. It's not for everyone, but if you want something fun and challenging with a little dash of horror, this is a killer watch.

Suffering from delusions of fortune, a young hermit (Ty Hickson, GIMME THE LOOT) hides out in the forest hoping to crack an ancient mystery, but pays a price for his mania.

When I saw that Joel Potrykus was the film's writer-director, I was immediately on board. His last feature, "Buzzard", really struck a nerve with me, and I feel a sense of pride that an upper Midwest filmmaker is making a go of it. In my review for "Buzzard", I noted a connection to Richard Linklater's early work (particularly "Slacker"). Perhaps Potrykus is following a similar rise to fame as Linklater: Allegedly, this is the first time Potrykus has not used an HDSLR or Super 8 camera to shoot his film, and the film quality is noticeably improved from earlier work.

We are dropped in to the middle of "Alchemist", and the early scenes leave us with some questions – who is this man and what is he up to? We quickly pick up on his independent, punk rock mentality. But is he crafting bombs, Unabomber-style? Perhaps this is a wilderness meth lab? The title is a clear allusion to the Anarchist Cookbook, but what does that mean? And what awful incident caused his leg injury?

The sparse cast allows Hickson a showcase, demonstrating that he is not just devastatingly handsome, but a superb thespian to boot. There is not a single scene without him, and in many scenes he is alone and has only gestures to emote with. In a little over an hour, Sean (Hickson) goes from wildly elated, to terrified, to menacing. If the Academy watched independent films, they would take note. Interestingly, as paranoia sets in, Hickson acts more like Joshua Burge did in "Buzzard". Does Potrykus script it this way, direct his actors this way, or is it a coincidence? Regardless, with Burge going on to appear in "The Revenant" and "20th Century Women", Hickson would probably be quite happy to follow his lead.

Amari Cheatom (DJANGO UNCHAINED) offers a bit of comic relief as the wannabe gangsta Cortez who has "got the good stuff", including a VCR to play such awful movies as "Red Heat" (not Schwarzenegger's finest moment). Although Cheatom is the supporting actor to Hickson, he still shows some acting chops in the second third of the film. (Then again, not knowing Cheatom personally, playing the gangsta could have been an impressive acting feat, even if he is very much a one-note character.)

The film has been described as "Evil Dead" meets "Walden" meets Jim Jarmusch. The "Evil Dead" comparison is actually quite fitting, as both could be described as films about a young man alone in the woods of Michigan who is forced to battle demons. The "Walden" aspect is self-explanatory. As for Jarmusch, I still prefer to think of Potrykus as being in the Linklater mold. For me, nothing can be Jarmuschesque unless it is black and white and Tom Waits appears in some capacity. (Yes, this is a very narrow definition, but that is how I envision the quintessential Jarmusch film.)

As is his wont, Potrykus defies genres with "Alchemist". On some level, it is clearly horror, because it involves conjuring demons, some bloody body parts, and a scene that will make you wince at the threat of finger trauma. But this is unconventional horror, really more of a story about mental illness with horror overtones. Think of William Friedkin's "Bug", for example. Horror? Yes. But not in the sense that we have comes to define that genre. Heck, the connection to the proverbial alchemist even hints at fantasy elements.

Critic Dennis Harvey explains, "Fans of absurdist indie comedies who find themselves watching a quasi-horror pic are likely to be happier than horror fans who find themselves watching an absurdist indie comedy with a demon in it." As a fan of both, I concede that Harvey makes a valid point. Indie fans (especially fans of "Buzzard") will find much to love. The die-hard horror crowd, however, might find themselves confused or even bored by the lack of action. In this sense, the film becomes a Rorschach test: it is as much about what was created as about the expectations the viewer brings with them.

"The Alchemist Cookbook" premieres at the Fantasia Film Festival on July 20, 2016. If you enter the theater with an open mind and without your preconceived notions of what a fantastic film should be, I suspect Joel Potrykus will be adding a few more members to his growing fan base.

First off this movie isn't for everyone. That's for sure. It's challenging and never gives the audience what they expect. The director has somehow made something that doesn't feel like a genre film, but includes elements from past and present supernatural films. It's got a timeless quality. You're never quite sure what's real and what is not. There are moments of genuine fear, and moment of genuine laugh out loud humor. But it's never easy. I almost feel like it needs to be watched twice. Moments come and go, and I know there's much more going on here than I could have caught the first time through, that's for sure. It's layers of paranoia and the effects of mental illness. No cheap shots, no jump scares. People may dismiss it, but there's a lot going on here.

It feels like something I've never seen before.

The Alchemist Cookbook has been getting some rave reviews so I decided to check it out since I am a fan of Great horror movies. This movie has literally only 2 people in the entire film but that's not my gripe and neither is the acting although it wasn't great a little too dramatic in some scenes with facial expressions that were not believable and dialogue at times leaves you wondering why is he saying this. But even though he's all alone in the middle of the woods it's just not creepy or scary at all. I also think the director & Writer of this film either under compensated for creating a good story or they were trying to be too artsy or psychological that the story doesn't progress well leaving you wondering what was the point of his mindset. Of course it's supposed to be a mystery to figure out but there is nothing to get out of it and at the point where they maybe could of explained a lot they don't and it will leave you frustrated that you sat there and watched basically nothing for a hour and a half... Forget what the clown critics say this one sorry to say is not a keeper.. skip it . You don't believe me go ahead watch it and just remember I told you so.