The Hamiltons

"The Hamiltons" has a great premise, and the ending of the film is inches from being extremely satisfying. On its own, an excellent ending...it's getting there that's the problem with the film.

The fundamental flaw of "The Hamiltons" is that it's caught between being a serial killer film and a family drama, and unlike "Suburban Nightmare" - which was similar, also an indie, and much better in my opinion - "The Hamiltons" refuses to commit to its characters. It wants you to empathize with them at the same time it paints them as violent sociopaths. In doing this I found the ending disingenuous, and most of the movie was simply too scattered.

There ARE strong points to the film. The main character, Francis, is easily the most well-developed character. Although he gets too whiny and, frankly, useless at times, he's able to make the transition into action with aplomb. His relationship with one of the women being held in the cellar of the house is particularly well-written and potent.

The problem is that the movie feels forced to bend to genre conventions, and in doing so it makes the other three members of the family unsympathetic in the extreme. The characters of Wendell and Darlene are written well as sociopaths, but the problem comes when the film wants you to identify with them and accept them as part of this family, and you can't imagine why anyone would love them even if they WERE family.

The film is worth watching, but the script really could've used another run through editing to work out the kinks.

... all the money (that's Greek idiom, which means that it's on the spot)! Because we're not talking about your average family (at least that's not how I imagine the US of A ;o) ). But it's best not to know anything else from this movie, just that this is a thriller/horror, with some crazy family folks. The actors might not be up to any academy award standard, but they still do fit the bill here quit nicely.

Some scenes will require the viewer to stomach a few things (although "veterans" might just only suppress a yawn), but it is necessary for the story, as you will found out. So the violence never is as over the top as some other movies (also described as gore porn, because it's too much violence), but still enough/too much for some people. After that warning, I'm leaving it up to you to decide if you want to watch this "nice" little "b-movie" ...

Without effective indulgence of the supernatural or the poetic motivating nuances of humanity, all this creative team has to hope for is effective usage of its middling, unoriginal elements. 'Party of Five' gone maniacal then genetically unescapable there's little rooting interest because the singular non-homicidal element is a second-rate bland awful-acting 'Wes Bentley' mopester. In fact, all of the acting is skin deep. Even though the dark-haired women appeal, the salaciousness is kept to a minimum. No nudity here. Also lacking are sufficient buckets of blood. All sensations are kept at a teasing, safe distance...an unfortunate fact considering the given name of the directors is 'butcher.' Only the soundtrack, the droning angsty alt-country and the tense fluctuating score provide any palpable tension. Sometimes some static storyboarded compositions add appealing low-angles that adds to the malaise...but for a film that calls itself horror, I did not even get close to flinching once. Perhaps a greater emphasis on societal rejuvenation through blood intake, scenes directed with varying geometric shapes outside the square, and a sustained focus on playfulness through the family's maliciousness or traps sympathetic characters need to escape in order to escape their dilemma would have improved my opinion, but this was not a good start to my excursion through horrorfest.

This is the second movie I saw for Horrorfest this past weekend, The Gravedancers being the first. Gravedancers was better. I can only guess from watching this that the production must have been quite limited. I will admit the story started out interesting but really fizzled for me in the end. We weren't really given time to sympathize or understand any of the characters which only made each of their erratic characteristics even more annoying. I have to mention that there was also a bit of mis-casting with a 12-year-old boy acting as Sheriff. The only reason I sat through the whole film was to find out what the big secret was, which turned out to not be all that interesting. Some more background about the family would have helped but they didn't really seem like a family at all to begin with.

To me, this film is so amateur that I couldn't even see putting it on DVD. The four rating is for the initial potential the story might have had. This was one to skip for horrorfest.

I saw this film at Cinequest, the San Jose Film Festival, in March of 2006. The Hamiltons is a movie with writing and directing credit going to "The Butcher Brothers". I think this is a name we will be seeing more from in the future. They've managed to put together a good old-fashioned scare fest, with some very powerful shocks along the way, all while using very basic gore and makeup effects.

The movie is about a group of grown siblings, whose parents have died, who are living together as a family unit, trying to be a "normal" suburban family. But they have a terrible secret. Part of that secret is that they abduct and kill people (mostly lovely young women). The rest of the secret is what keeps us involved throughout the mayhem that follows.

They've managed to create an atmosphere similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without being quite so gruesome or so unrelenting. Mixed among the powerful killing and torture scenes are scenes of banal domestic dysfunction. They are obviously big horror fans and sprinkle the movie with references to the movies genre fans love.

My only complaint is that they overindulge in camera tricks. Some of the tricks are very effective. In the pre-credit scene a woman is killed, but the violence occurs in a series of extremely rapid cuts (I'm guessing maybe 3 per second) which keeps us from quite seeing what's happening. This allows our bloody imaginations to do much of the work and keeps us from noticing how simple the make-up effects are. I would like to have seen them use this technique again, but instead they went on to try every camera trick they could think of.

The youngest brother is camcording much of the family action, he says for a school project. This gives the directors an excuse to have many square-cropped, bouncy scenes, with jagged edges around the objects and low resolution. Other scenes are grainy with a shot-on-videotape-in-poor-lighting look. Much of the movie is in high-resolution, beautiful 35mm. Then, even more distractingly, they start mixing up the resolution and cropping mattes, so that we get a high resolution square shot, supposedly from the camcorder, so the actor can look good in close up. There's a couple of scenes where the shot alternates between two actors in dialog and one of them is shot in the grainy tape-look format while the other one is in high-res 35mm. Nearly all of the violent scenes are augmented? by quick-motion, tracers, vibrating cameras, or something else to add impact not present in the action itself. I'm sure they had fun playing all these camera games. The problem is that it draws us out of the story. I spent much of the movie's time thinking about such things, instead of wondering what they were going to do to those poor girls next. There are a few soundtrack scares, but they don't overdo this.

If it ever gets released, I'll want to see it again. The camera tricks do not make the movie unwatchable, they're just distracting. It's a much better movie than a lot of low-budget horror and it left me with the kind of feeling I get from the old 70s and 80s slashers, but it's not as graphic.