Starring: Sarah Fisher, Mark Wiebe, Jesse Camacho, Kendra Leigh Timmins, David Lipper, Robert Patrick.
Director: Ian Kessner.
Another film I don't know an awful lot about. Clearly, everything about the box art screams a throwback to the 1980's. But The Final Girls set a very high bar on that scene so I can't help but be skeptical about it. It does have Robert Patrick, and seems to have a sense of humor. It's not being meta, either, so at the very least that distances it from Final Girls.
The occasional overexposure and "film crinkles" are...well, okay, I guess they're clever in concept but they mostly are just vaguely irritating distractions. Especially considering that they didn't make the rest of the film look aged (like House Of The Devil did, which was another excellent throwback). So there are these random overexposures meant to invoke the feel of an older film...but it doesn't look like an old film. Plot and character wise...well, I'm not entirely sure the screenwriter and director really knew that much about the eighties. Other than some pastels, letter jackets and a few other cliches, there's nothing super "80's" about it. In fact, most of the costumes and make-up feel pretty modern(but that may not be the movies fault: just fashion).
Robert Patrick is a good choice for the no-nonsense school Principle who is tracking our delinquent leads. A group of kids, meant to invoke 80's horror movie cliches, decide to take a school bus for a joy ride to a cabin in the woods. Bus breaks down. They end up going to the home of some backwoods psychopath instead. Meanwhile, Robert Patrick bullies our final girl's Dad and together the pair go after the kids.
A lot of this isn't as clever as it thinks it is. I'm not sure what exactly is missing here: maybe it's because this premise requires a total commitment that the filmmakers aren't comfortable making. I feel like this would need to either be total, self-aware camp or subvert camp completely and play it straight, and it doesn't feel like the film is interested in doing either. Those two things really can't meet in the middle, really. The Final Girls kind of got away with it in small increments, and House of the Devil made the full commitment to playing things straight. Lose After Dark probably could be something special if it went full-on camp and exaggerated its features: grainy filmstock, slang, absurd fashions and constant references. But instead it seems to want to be all things to all people, and that's poison to a film with this kind of gimmick. There's really nothing to specifically signify this as a throwback eighties flick: the camerawork and lighting are unmistakably modern(that damn blue filter that everyone uses nowadays is everywhere), and while many slasher tropes were codified during that era, they're not being utilized in any way that distances itself from any run-of-the-mill modern slasher.
The movie is a generic slasher flick that is inexplicably set in the Eighties, is basically what I'm saying. The gimmick isn't really present, it's just being paid lip service.
Well, shit, there was one surprise! Our final girl isn't so final. That's pretty interesting. She had all the traditional trappings of the final girl trope: virginal, smart, sweet natured. Fascinatingly enough, her decency is what gets her killed. Now I would assume the punk girl is the heroine, but with one solid move the film has called certain elements into question. So, maybe if they're dropping their gimmick, they could still be subversive with character roles. Maybe even the black guy will live? Maybe?
The death scenes actually are pretty decent here, too. When you set aside the gimmicky setting and see the film as just a normal slasher movie, you do tend to realize it isn't a bad one. Now that it's moved into the slasher stuff, it's moving pretty fast...
Oh. A "reel missing" title card? You were doing well, movie. Then you had to do that.
That killed a lot of momentum. Now Robert Patrick has arrived on the scene to generally feel mostly out of place. We're down to basically two characters, one of whom I had entirely forgotten about because these characters aren't super interesting(and well, she was the one who was supposedly dying during the while "reel missing" debacle). I will say, though, this movie has a few unexpected moments, even if those are mostly because they go against type. Then we add Robert Patrick to act kinda dumb...but he might actually end up being the hero here but probably not.
So, wait, a flashback to flesh out backstory AFTER the key action has wrapped up? What the heck?
Final Thoughts: Like I said before. For a atypical slasher film, this isn't necessarily a bad one. The kill scenes are decent looking, it has some fun with certain expectations in who it kills off and when, and is reasonably well paced and direct. That being said, its central gimmick is a complete wash, poorly executed and clumsily conceived. It's not clever or interesting, it's just irritating. Overall it's not a bad film, really...just isn't a terribly good one.
Final Rating: Two and a Half Stars.
The occasional overexposure and "film crinkles" are...well, okay, I guess they're clever in concept but they mostly are just vaguely irritating distractions. Especially considering that they didn't make the rest of the film look aged (like House Of The Devil did, which was another excellent throwback). So there are these random overexposures meant to invoke the feel of an older film...but it doesn't look like an old film. Plot and character wise...well, I'm not entirely sure the screenwriter and director really knew that much about the eighties. Other than some pastels, letter jackets and a few other cliches, there's nothing super "80's" about it. In fact, most of the costumes and make-up feel pretty modern(but that may not be the movies fault: just fashion).
Robert Patrick is a good choice for the no-nonsense school Principle who is tracking our delinquent leads. A group of kids, meant to invoke 80's horror movie cliches, decide to take a school bus for a joy ride to a cabin in the woods. Bus breaks down. They end up going to the home of some backwoods psychopath instead. Meanwhile, Robert Patrick bullies our final girl's Dad and together the pair go after the kids.
A lot of this isn't as clever as it thinks it is. I'm not sure what exactly is missing here: maybe it's because this premise requires a total commitment that the filmmakers aren't comfortable making. I feel like this would need to either be total, self-aware camp or subvert camp completely and play it straight, and it doesn't feel like the film is interested in doing either. Those two things really can't meet in the middle, really. The Final Girls kind of got away with it in small increments, and House of the Devil made the full commitment to playing things straight. Lose After Dark probably could be something special if it went full-on camp and exaggerated its features: grainy filmstock, slang, absurd fashions and constant references. But instead it seems to want to be all things to all people, and that's poison to a film with this kind of gimmick. There's really nothing to specifically signify this as a throwback eighties flick: the camerawork and lighting are unmistakably modern(that damn blue filter that everyone uses nowadays is everywhere), and while many slasher tropes were codified during that era, they're not being utilized in any way that distances itself from any run-of-the-mill modern slasher.
The movie is a generic slasher flick that is inexplicably set in the Eighties, is basically what I'm saying. The gimmick isn't really present, it's just being paid lip service.
Well, shit, there was one surprise! Our final girl isn't so final. That's pretty interesting. She had all the traditional trappings of the final girl trope: virginal, smart, sweet natured. Fascinatingly enough, her decency is what gets her killed. Now I would assume the punk girl is the heroine, but with one solid move the film has called certain elements into question. So, maybe if they're dropping their gimmick, they could still be subversive with character roles. Maybe even the black guy will live? Maybe?
The death scenes actually are pretty decent here, too. When you set aside the gimmicky setting and see the film as just a normal slasher movie, you do tend to realize it isn't a bad one. Now that it's moved into the slasher stuff, it's moving pretty fast...
Oh. A "reel missing" title card? You were doing well, movie. Then you had to do that.
That killed a lot of momentum. Now Robert Patrick has arrived on the scene to generally feel mostly out of place. We're down to basically two characters, one of whom I had entirely forgotten about because these characters aren't super interesting(and well, she was the one who was supposedly dying during the while "reel missing" debacle). I will say, though, this movie has a few unexpected moments, even if those are mostly because they go against type. Then we add Robert Patrick to act kinda dumb...but he might actually end up being the hero here but probably not.
So, wait, a flashback to flesh out backstory AFTER the key action has wrapped up? What the heck?
Final Thoughts: Like I said before. For a atypical slasher film, this isn't necessarily a bad one. The kill scenes are decent looking, it has some fun with certain expectations in who it kills off and when, and is reasonably well paced and direct. That being said, its central gimmick is a complete wash, poorly executed and clumsily conceived. It's not clever or interesting, it's just irritating. Overall it's not a bad film, really...just isn't a terribly good one.
Final Rating: Two and a Half Stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment