A Brush with Death

RELEASED IN 2007, "A Brush with Death" is a horror/slasher about five cheerleaders on retreat at a vacation home in the country of California. There's an abandoned house nearby that has an infamous history and the girls are intrigued by it. Meanwhile a couple local guys come sniffing around the girls.

There are three basic types of film: Grade A films are professionally-made theatrically released films, which includes everything from moderate-budget to blockbuster; Grade B films are low-budget movies that are either made-for-TV or direct-to-video and these include independent films or indies; Grade C movies are everything below this, which means they have micro-budgets or no-budgets and have an amateurish vibe to them; they'll often strike you as more of a student movie than a legitimate one. "A Brush with Death" (2007) is definitely a Grade C film.

Sometimes Grade B films can be Grade A at heart because of the hard work and professionalism of the filmmakers and cast, like 2010's "Monsters," which only cost around $800,000 but was so well-made that it came across as a Grade A film (which doesn't mean you'll like it, of course). I point this out because sometimes Grade C movies can theoretically be Grade B films at heart, or possibly even Grade A (albeit unlikely). "Another Kind" (2013) is a good example. It only cost $120,000, but it smacks of a modest-budget theatrical release.

I point all this out because, even though "A Brush with Death" is a Grade C film, it doesn't mean it HAS to be a stinker. With a budget of 200,000 the creators had considerably more resources than "Another Kind." So I viewed it with an open mind in the hope that it would rise beyond its limitations. Unfortunately, it didn't. I'm very merciful when it comes to acting. I don't care how no-name the cast members are, if the acting is satisfactory it'll be convincing; if not, it won't. A lot of the acting in "A Brush with Death" is just unconvincing; not all of it, but too much of it. And some of it is downright laughable. Especially when the gas station man abducts & kills a girl and takes loads of pictures of her and, later, when the five protagonists break down on a country road and the man from the gas stations stops by to offer help. These were the first bad signs and the movie never really recovers from this low-level of filmmaking.

The only reasons I'm NOT giving "A Brush with Death" an F is because there's (barely) enough filmmaking talent here that the story moderately kept my attention for the first 50 minutes or so; plus there are some quality visuals, like the haunted house at night, and a few of the actors aren't bad (like the mentally challenged guy); moreover, a few of the girls are decent: Ali Thurlow as Candice, Nikki Cordell as Hillary and Seanna McDonald as Amber. Blonde Candice is easily the most beautiful, but she's inexplicably gone by the 25-minute mark. The script was really lame in parts and it clearly needed more time to work out the kinks and flush out its potential, like George Romero did with "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). Unfortunately, it was rushed and this shows in the finished product. The flick should have never been released to video because it's that poor of a Grade C "film."

THE MOVIE RUNS 81 minutes and was shot in San Joaquin Valley, which is just east of the Bay Area in Northern California.

GRADE: D (2.5/10)

I actually like low budget, usually low rated movies. There is something about them.... sometimes its a mess and laughable. BUT I don't feel like I completely wasted my time viewing this movie. Maybe I would feel different if I paid to see in a movie theater where I was a captive audience. I multi-tasked while viewing. Nothing too important that can be "missed". Not too bad a movie. Now they expect reviews to be ten lines, and although I summed up my feelings about this movie in less, I will take the time to try and balance out the negative reviews just a tad. So I will again say the movie was not to bad in hopes of making enough lines to meet the criteria for a review.

The case quoted one plot while the movie was well barely similar.

Case" Five cheerleaders spend the night in an abandoned farmhouse and find themselves up against a vengeful ghost.

They soon find out the spirit is from a dead boy who painted a portrait of the brother he killed forty years earlier." OK now while there are 5 girls that come off as sluts it is never really clear that they are cheerleaders. The first 2/3 of the film is spent watching them swim and party. This has an R rating but comes off like middle school porn! There is an occasional flashback of a demented older brother making the younger one kill a cat and play some awful how much do you love me game and than suggesting that the younger brother kill their father.

You do see paintings, that appear to be made with blood, of what we can only assume are other victims. BUT lets make things very clear, there is no GHOST the killing brother is alive and well killing more people and evidently has a couple of sons.

If this movie had delivered the plot the case claims it had, perhaps it would have been worth watching.

Five cheerleaders drive down to one of their uncle's mansion for a mini-vacation, once there they meet Ranken the neighbor from half a mile down, he tells them of an abandoned house close by. A good portion of the movie deals with the girls lounging around the mansion's pool in bikinis (but never do any of the get even topless, that would inject something of interest into the film) with the horror/slasher element of the film relegated to late in the movie (apart from a few asides to other people that don't really go anywhere & some flashbacks) Even if I weren't jaded by atrocious low-budget slasher films, this one would've still bored me to tears. Nothing even remotely approaching competence (much less entertainment) can be found within this wast of celluloid.

My Grade: F

What can I say about this stinker. No acting, no blood, no gore, no nothing. The storyline is a turkey too, why is that man taking pictures from a girl, why is she almost undressed and in the next shot dressed and then undressed again? Who is that guy, supposed to mislead the viewer thinking he is the killer. How stupid are those girls really want to visit an abandoned house were some atrocities happened. 1954 and 1955 back flashes, huh, who are those kids? the names never appear in the movie. The end, what the hell, see it coming miles away. And what about the conversations between the girls, so stupid, you see them wait until one has finished her sentence. This is no acting. At the end, suddenly there is light in that house but still they think no one lives there. No blood flows, just in snap shots that's the best part, some frames included with blood. You never see any killing of effect used. Can it get worser? I don't think so... a waist of time