Below Zero

The basic premise of the movie is that of a horror story writer seeking some inspiration for writing his latest story, by going to a rural farm where he'll have some peace and quiet, and a prearranged eerie atmosphere given that he'll stay inside the farm's slaughterhouse. As he'll soon find out, he got more than he bargained for. Nothing too original about the storyline, but it's always a good starting point for a horror movie.

The problem was that the story didn't develop in a coherent way and many of the subsequent twists and turns in the plot seemed both trivial and unnecessary. There was no real moment of horror nor was there any eerie atmosphere throughout the movie. Many horror movies get away with bad scripts thanks to good directing, where a build-up of atmosphere and the occasional horror moment draw you into the story and make you forget about any plot holes or incoherence.

The problem here was that there was no real atmosphere. Partly, this was due to bad character casting. Miss "piggy laugh" was way too young and ordinary-looking for her role as some redneck farm lady, and the main character seemed more like a bored heavy metal-loving teenager than a professional horror writer fighting his inner daemons. Even so, the director could have saved the day with some "camera magic", adding a few extra flashback moments here and there and backing up the dialogs with fitting background music, just to get some atmosphere going. That's what separates good directors from bad, good directors don't just follow the script as a textbook manual and leave it up to the actors to make or break the movie, especially not when it's plain obvious that the main actors are unable to carry out their parts properly.

Sounded like a great idea; a guy with writer's block decides, with his agent's blessing, to get locked into a slaughterhouse, so that he will have no distractions while he completes the script for a horror movie; forget it, this doesn't work at any level. Edward Furlong is fine as the writer, but the story is ridiculous and the format annoying beyond belief. At the start, Furlong is in truck being driven by a woman who is doing a dead on impression of the Frances McDormand's character from Fargo. This is not anywhere near that great Coen brother masterpiece. The movie flashes back and forth between Furlong typing on his laptop and a bald bad guy who looks like he has been in the sun too long, cutting up people with an axe and a hacksaw. The writer puts himself and a woman trapped by the unnamed villain. There is also a little boy who never speaks. The whole thing makes no sense, and the ending is dumb. Do not waste your valuable time on this tedious film.

We go through some amazing plot twists in both the "real world" and the movie within a movie. I found it funny when the characters had to figure out what to do next and ended up looking through the pages Jack had typed. And it's not the only time they break the fourth wall.

In a flashback we do learn about the other character which the actor playing Gunnar was. He's very different but still scary looking.

The ending was quite unexpected (to me, anyway) but very satisfying.

The movie within a movie is somewhat effective as a B horror movie. Michael Berryman is a very frightening and intimidating villain, yet loving as a father, in his own way. The young actor quite creepy for a kid. Kristin Booth is very convincing when she is cold, but frightened? Not as talented in that situation. She's better in her "real world" role.

I've heard the name Edward Furlong. He's pretty good, I guess. Nothing overly distinctive.

I felt comfortable with Michael Eisner. He was sort of the voice of reason when he could be.

The "real world" has its own interesting suspense qualities. And there is occasional comedy in both.

This most definitely isn't for kids. The sound went out a lot since this was broadcast TV. I know what that means. And that's just the bad language. Maybe when cleaned up for TV, some kids can handle it.

Is this any good? Well, it's different.

BELOW ZERO is a thinking person's mystery horror. A scriptwriter, Jack the Hack, has writer's block and arranges to be locked in a slaughterhouse freezer until he comes up with a script. Believe it or not, scriptwriter Signe Olynyk tells me she also did this when writing the movie. On screen, the story is dramatised for us as Jack writes, so we have two on-screen narratives: Jack's world (think, Fargo) and that of the alter ego in his story (think Saw). As he considers various re-writes, the story within a story changes. But a third story is at hand: that from Jack's own psyche. His basic plot, surprise surprise, is someone accidentally being locked in a freezer, in a building owned by a serial killer. But, if you can stand back from the subsequent on screen gore, there's maybe time to work out what's really happening! This Kaufmanesque horror story keeps you on your toes all the way through. Signe doesn't recommend new writers try the freezer trick at home, but she does run a scriptwriters' workshop, Pitchfest (www.pitchfest.com), and invites any budding writers reading this to get in touch with her.

BORING! You only see a freezer, a dissection room, and hanging pigs. Although the problem is - what part of the story is the BOOK, or which is REAL LIFE? I realize, when the guy is wearing the red plaid shirt, he's in the story - and when he is wearing the hoodie, this is real life... but... they keep rewriting the book, changing the story.

So, is Person X alive in the real world, or is Person X dead in the book? Did they resurrect him like Jesus, or just done with a pen (computer and later an old-school non-electric typewriter).

The end of the movie (or the book, not sure) was kind of funny, especially if it was done in the real world. But, I wouldn't watch this snooze fest just to find out the conundrum at the end. Just not worth it!

SKIP THIS ONE!!!!!