john-souray
Joined Apr 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews22
john-souray's rating
I was going to say that this film was lazy and incompetent independent film-making at its worst. I keep trying to make this point; low budgets needn't matter, and we don't mind the cheap special effects and the limited sets if the film is made with passion and conviction. It doesn't cost anything to get the plot right; just imagination and attention to detail. But that's exactly what this film seems to lack.
An update of the Scottish Sawney Beane legend and transplanting to Maine and the Canadian coast, it has some promising ideas and a couple of effective sequences, but it fails to establish them or develop them properly. What's with the lighthouse keeper? We get a glimpse of a newspaper clipping while the opening credits roll, and one of the characters makes a brief reference during the film, but this history deserved telling properly, even if only narrated by one of the characters, and could have added real mythic power to the plot. But it appears the film-makers just couldn't be bothered.
And then 76 minutes later, barely achieving the minimum respectable length for a feature film, it comes to an abrupt end, with several characters and plot lines unresolved. Please no, don't tell me you're leaving the door open for a sequel. (Adopt appropriate gravelly voice: Offspring 2 – the new generation!) In between, there's a load of confused stumbling around in night-time woods or on stretches of beach that look nothing like the earlier panoramic daytime shots we had of the coastline.
I was going to say all this, but then I glanced up at the technical information in this IMDb entry. 100 minutes, it says. A hundred! But my UK rented copy was only 76 minutes; both the sleeve and the DVD timer confirm it. That's a quarter of the film gone! No wonder the plot seems sketchy, and you can't follow what's happening.
It is entirely incomprehensible. It carries a UK 18 certificate, which is the most serious apart from the 18Rs that can only be bought from licensed sex shops, and I don't imagine they have anything in them that can't be seen for free on the internet. What on earth can the UK censors have found that required 24 minutes of cuts? If it really was originally 100 mins I frankly don't see what the point of releasing the film like this is. At the very least, this review stands as a warning to UK viewers; check the length. If it's the 76 minute version I saw, I'm certainly not recommending it.
Edit: Barely a couple of weeks after posting this, I read in my newspaper that "The Serbian Film" had received between four and five minutes of cuts at the hands of the UK censor, and that this made it the most cut UK film for sixteen years. If that's so, then I was wrong to blame the cut from 100 to 76 minutes on the censor. This makes it all the more baffling. Why would you voluntarily cut your own film to such a skimpy dog's dinner? In any case, it doesn't change my recommendation (or lack of it): just the attribution of blame.
An update of the Scottish Sawney Beane legend and transplanting to Maine and the Canadian coast, it has some promising ideas and a couple of effective sequences, but it fails to establish them or develop them properly. What's with the lighthouse keeper? We get a glimpse of a newspaper clipping while the opening credits roll, and one of the characters makes a brief reference during the film, but this history deserved telling properly, even if only narrated by one of the characters, and could have added real mythic power to the plot. But it appears the film-makers just couldn't be bothered.
And then 76 minutes later, barely achieving the minimum respectable length for a feature film, it comes to an abrupt end, with several characters and plot lines unresolved. Please no, don't tell me you're leaving the door open for a sequel. (Adopt appropriate gravelly voice: Offspring 2 – the new generation!) In between, there's a load of confused stumbling around in night-time woods or on stretches of beach that look nothing like the earlier panoramic daytime shots we had of the coastline.
I was going to say all this, but then I glanced up at the technical information in this IMDb entry. 100 minutes, it says. A hundred! But my UK rented copy was only 76 minutes; both the sleeve and the DVD timer confirm it. That's a quarter of the film gone! No wonder the plot seems sketchy, and you can't follow what's happening.
It is entirely incomprehensible. It carries a UK 18 certificate, which is the most serious apart from the 18Rs that can only be bought from licensed sex shops, and I don't imagine they have anything in them that can't be seen for free on the internet. What on earth can the UK censors have found that required 24 minutes of cuts? If it really was originally 100 mins I frankly don't see what the point of releasing the film like this is. At the very least, this review stands as a warning to UK viewers; check the length. If it's the 76 minute version I saw, I'm certainly not recommending it.
Edit: Barely a couple of weeks after posting this, I read in my newspaper that "The Serbian Film" had received between four and five minutes of cuts at the hands of the UK censor, and that this made it the most cut UK film for sixteen years. If that's so, then I was wrong to blame the cut from 100 to 76 minutes on the censor. This makes it all the more baffling. Why would you voluntarily cut your own film to such a skimpy dog's dinner? In any case, it doesn't change my recommendation (or lack of it): just the attribution of blame.
As another reviewer has suggested, it's not worth wasting too much time telling you "this movie sucks". What do you need to know? Cheap, unconvincing sets. Perfunctory acting. Barely coherent plot full of red herrings and non sequiturs. Doesn't last a minute longer than the minimum they can get away with.
This is what? A women's prison? And they have not cells, but dormitories? Through which the male warders stroll while the girls lounge on their beds in their underwear? Even the notoriously cheap Australian soap, Prisoner Cell Block H, had a go at cells, even if the cardboard walls did wobble when people bumped into them.
But what's the point complaining? It's a Charles Band film. That tells you everything you need to know.
Almost everything, but there are still a couple of points worth making. It may be bad, like all Band Full Moon productions, but it's still nowhere near as mind-sappingly awful as something from The Asylum Team. I'm not sure why, but I think it may be because there still survives a sense that someone is trying to entertain you by telling a story, whereas in Asylum mockbusters the cynical and exploitative contempt for the audience has long overshadowed any vestigial vision or artistic purpose.
And there's at least one good scene in it. Well, not good, necessarily, but promising. Eva (Jessica Morris, who, fair dos, actually has a creditable go at making something of her part) is being disciplined by the sadistic (natch) warden/matron (Deb Snyder). So as not to leave any incriminating evidence, the warden produces an old electric shock machine, a wonderfully hokey piece of equipment seemingly stolen from the laboratory of Dr. Frankenstein, full of unnecessary coils and valves. As the warden administers increasingly violent shocks, Eva first laughs ("ooh! - that tickles") then shouts out her defiance and contempt ("you're going to have to do better than that!"). There's a genuine, exhilarating demonic power to all this. If only the scene was properly resolved, instead of cutting away and then returning later to a tableau of the aftermath.
And that's what's so frustrating about cheap films like this. With just a little bit of effort, a little bit of care and attention to detail, that spark of creativity could have been fanned into something worthwhile. Not great, necessarily, but challenging, provocative, or even bitterly funny. At the end of the day, it's not the cheap sets or Ed Wood special effects or amateur acting that does for films like this. They actually don't matter; you only notice them because for so much of the time there's nothing else to notice. No, what does for these films is the laziness, the negligence, the numbing lack of ambition. It's the script and plot that lets them down, and they cost next to nothing. Just spend a bit of time thinking through those plot strands, and find a resolution that ties them together. Dialogue rusty? Get a second pair of ears to work through it. Concentrate on a couple of key sequences (in this film, that'll be the electric shock machine, and the waste disposal unit) and take a bit of time and care getting them right.
But that's the film that might have been. This one, I'm afraid, is not worth wasting your time or money on. Well, probably not. I got my copy from a pound shop. That's a British recession-driven thrift store: everything a pound or less (about a dollar fifty). At that price, I'm not really angry. It gave me a wry smile or two, and added to my knowledge and understanding of Z-grade horror films. But don't pay a penny more.
This is what? A women's prison? And they have not cells, but dormitories? Through which the male warders stroll while the girls lounge on their beds in their underwear? Even the notoriously cheap Australian soap, Prisoner Cell Block H, had a go at cells, even if the cardboard walls did wobble when people bumped into them.
But what's the point complaining? It's a Charles Band film. That tells you everything you need to know.
Almost everything, but there are still a couple of points worth making. It may be bad, like all Band Full Moon productions, but it's still nowhere near as mind-sappingly awful as something from The Asylum Team. I'm not sure why, but I think it may be because there still survives a sense that someone is trying to entertain you by telling a story, whereas in Asylum mockbusters the cynical and exploitative contempt for the audience has long overshadowed any vestigial vision or artistic purpose.
And there's at least one good scene in it. Well, not good, necessarily, but promising. Eva (Jessica Morris, who, fair dos, actually has a creditable go at making something of her part) is being disciplined by the sadistic (natch) warden/matron (Deb Snyder). So as not to leave any incriminating evidence, the warden produces an old electric shock machine, a wonderfully hokey piece of equipment seemingly stolen from the laboratory of Dr. Frankenstein, full of unnecessary coils and valves. As the warden administers increasingly violent shocks, Eva first laughs ("ooh! - that tickles") then shouts out her defiance and contempt ("you're going to have to do better than that!"). There's a genuine, exhilarating demonic power to all this. If only the scene was properly resolved, instead of cutting away and then returning later to a tableau of the aftermath.
And that's what's so frustrating about cheap films like this. With just a little bit of effort, a little bit of care and attention to detail, that spark of creativity could have been fanned into something worthwhile. Not great, necessarily, but challenging, provocative, or even bitterly funny. At the end of the day, it's not the cheap sets or Ed Wood special effects or amateur acting that does for films like this. They actually don't matter; you only notice them because for so much of the time there's nothing else to notice. No, what does for these films is the laziness, the negligence, the numbing lack of ambition. It's the script and plot that lets them down, and they cost next to nothing. Just spend a bit of time thinking through those plot strands, and find a resolution that ties them together. Dialogue rusty? Get a second pair of ears to work through it. Concentrate on a couple of key sequences (in this film, that'll be the electric shock machine, and the waste disposal unit) and take a bit of time and care getting them right.
But that's the film that might have been. This one, I'm afraid, is not worth wasting your time or money on. Well, probably not. I got my copy from a pound shop. That's a British recession-driven thrift store: everything a pound or less (about a dollar fifty). At that price, I'm not really angry. It gave me a wry smile or two, and added to my knowledge and understanding of Z-grade horror films. But don't pay a penny more.
