Writer/Director: Josh Lobo
Starring: Scott Poythress, A.J. Bowen, Susan Burke

BLOODHOUND PIX​

In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.

Bloodhound Pix is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, and Kyle Hintz

Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/

When Matt (A.J. Bowen) and his wife, Karen (Susan Burke), pay a Christmas visit to his brother, Steve (Scott Poythress), they find him all but boarded up in the brothers’ childhood home.  Upon arrival things seem amiss, the place is a mess and Steve demands they leave, clearly unhinged.  Despite that, Matt and Karen stay and discover that Steve has a man locked in the cellar, a man he believes is the Devil.


Initial Reactions

C. The latest entry into the mumblegore genre (the horror subgenre of mumblecore) has all the essentials; one location, a couple actors, character driven, minimal spectacle, dysfunctional family drama, and of course, A.J. Bowen. I realize the way it was phrased suggests a negative connotation which isn’t the case at all. There have been great mumblegore films over the last decade that shaped modern horror (You’re Next, House of the Devil, Cheap Thrills).

I found I Trapped the Devil to work as a slow burn based around a moral conundrum. I will say though like many in this niche genre, you definitely have to be in the right mood to enjoy it. It’s something that would be best suited for prose, where you could get into the internal thoughts of the characters.

The Devil (or victim) is trapped behind a door and only speaks a handful of times, which leaves you wishing he/she was tied up or trapped in another way where the main characters could interact with him/her. This would offer more tension and the whole “Devil playing a game with mortals” device that helps push the plot forward. With that, my other major concern is we find out early on if the trapped individual is actually the Devil or not. The problem with knowing so early on is we (the audience) are no longer guessing if Steve is crazy or not. Instead we spend the whole second half of the movie just waiting for the outcome that we know is coming.

It is set during the Christmas season but that is a jumping off point to get the movie going, there’s nothing that makes this a Christmas horror movie.

For the most part I enjoyed the movie for what it was. I knew where it was going and I checked the time during the dragging moments but the acting is superb (A.J. BOWEN!) and it was a nice little dread-soaked movie that showed great competency in Josh Lobo’s direction.

J. Again, the old “is he crazy” or did he really “trap the devil” situation.  The actors are all solid as I think we’ll all agree.  I find Bowen to be endlessly watchable so the fact that the others are all solid makes for an interesting take on a play-type of production.  Jocelin Donahue is also present but in a role much too minimal for her talent.  She needed a bigger part goddammitt!  I find that I enjoy the set up of whether a character is nuts or telling a highly improbable tale and this one was no different for me, save for the fact that the question is answered too soon.  There’s some wicked hallucinogenic style imagery where we are left to wonder if it’s the influence of the devil or a whacked out, deranged mind but it’s fun to experience either way.  The trapped man (or devil) is somehow a bit unsettling even though we never actually see him and only have the sound of his voice to note his presence.  I also wondered why after Steve admits what he’s done and Matt and his wife lead an interrogation into his thought process, they never ask him what made him kidnap what he thought was the devil.  That seems like a pretty important question to me that no one thinks to ask poor Steve.  Did he look at you the wrong way?  Did he call you an asshole?  Did he talk about your mother sucking cocks in hell sorta thing?  I dunno and we’ll never know either.   Anyway, this is a film that you will most likely either really like or probably won’t.  I mostly enjoyed the experience myself.  


K.  The film is a three hander between Poythress, Bowen and Burke, and each turns in a solid performance.  The cinematography and lighting are well conceived, juxtaposing the cheerful holiday with the chaotic old house that’s gone to pot.  Unfortunately, the writing causes the narrative to stall out several times along the way.  The main tension is drawn from the situation of the man in the cellar, is he the Devil or is Steve crazy?  A situation that could pretty easily come to a head if one were to open the door and let the detained man out to determine whether or not he is, in fact, the Devil.  However, in an effort to maintain that tension and draw it out for the climax, the story meanders, dragging out its simple setup to an unsatisfying conclusion.  

Lobo shows definite talent as a filmmaker, but this effort feels like a short film that’s been stretched out far too long, which is a shame because the actors and crew do the best they can under the circumstances. ​

Response

C.  I think there’s no denying the acting talent with the movie (could’ve been a play), as that’s really all we got to grasp onto. For fans of the mumblecore genre, you’re going to feel right at home. For me? I was fine with the pacing and style but I can see it’s something I was fortunate enough to be in the mood for during my screening. It must be approached as a character-study rather than trying to experience it based on the plot or horror elements. If you try, the meandering will stand out. Was it fresh, inventive, unique, whatever? No. But like every critique I have for this movie it will keep coming full circle to “but the acting was great!”, so to stop me from rambling let’s end here.

J.  Yeah, the plot is thinner than paper to be sure but that isn’t really an issue for me but I know it will be for all the impatient fuckers out there.  I think we’ve laid out pretty well (all we can with no spoilers) what you can expect from this one.  

K.  I definitely fall into the impatient fuckers category with this one.  “Please, please, please, get on with it” is what I kept saying to myself.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 3.5 out of 5
​

Director: Jack McHenry
Writer(s): Alice Sidgwick and Jack McHenry
Starring: Jessica Webber, Margaret Clunie, Tom Bailey, Charlie Robb, and Timothy Renouf

In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.

Bloodhound Pix is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, andKyle Hintz

Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/

A 1930's dinner party descends into carnage, gore and demonic possession in this genre-clashing horror comedy.

Initial Reactions

C. A big issue lately is the idea of merging two ideas together to make one movie. Sometimes this can result in inconsistencies, leading to the common critique of “it feels like two movies in one.” The second issue, especially with “genre” films, is the lack of embracing what the movie is. Some try to have a minimalistic, low budget concepts with plot devices that require a higher budget. Others try to be serious and “artistic” with a director’s image that lends itself to incorporating some comedic elements. Here Comes Hell doesn’t suffer from either of these issues. It knows exactly what it is, its budgetary limits and uses its influence blending to make a singular story. Yes, there are flaws but goddamn is it fun!

Here Comes Hell will probably turn people away because of many factors surrounding its 1930’s style. The movie is not only set in the 1930’s but is made to look like one of the classic gothic films that would have come out at that time. There’s piano or violin accompanying all the dialogue, obviously fake backgrounds, even the actors are portrayed with that theatrical and detached presence that was found in the early decades of cinema. For these reasons, I was completely on board. As I stated above the movie embraces what it is in jest at times but everything is played completely straight and bland (in a good way, reference acting of the era), never crossing that line into the land of Scary Movie-parody. Obviously there are flaws in the presentation due to budgetary restraints or modern technology that doesn’t allow the film to look completely like a movie out of the 30’s but they do a very good job with what they have. So if you’re not a fan of the classic black & white Universal Monsters to gothic tales from England and France, you’re going to be bored, especially since it takes about 35minutes to get to the “horror” aspects of the story.

Once the horror gets going, it’s full The Evil Dead, with Demon POV shots, possession, a portal to Hell, body dismemberment, and an Evil Dead 2 suit-up sequence where they have to venture into the basement. They play with some of these elements to incorporate their Great Gatsby-esque socialite humor, such as the suit-up sequence of making weapons is filled with cuts to glasses of liquor being poured and cigarettes being lit. Actually a common occurrence throughout is no matter how devastating a scene will be it will most likely end with someone asking if anyone else would “like a drink.”  It does give a little too many nods to Evil Dead that the directors own artistic voice doesn’t shine through.

Overall I found myself having a hard time noticing any major critiques, because the movie is in that fine place where any concern you could always chalk up to the style or it’s meant to be “purposefully” bad, cheap, whatever. So to the people at Trashouse Films, jolly good, old chaps. You took what you had to work with and made a splendid little movie.   

J. I had an absolute blast with this.  Two things that are absolutely my shit are the 1930’s and The Evil Dead. This film is what would’ve happened if Ash and his friends were in that era and their shenanigans occurred in an old Gothic mansion instead of a cabin in the 80’s in Tennessee.  In other words, this movie was exceptional.  The characters aren’t necessarily original but they are all so different from one another that they stood out and were entertaining.  I would say that the shenanigans here should’ve started sooner than the 30 minute mark or thereabouts.  At only 72 minutes, we need to get to the shenanigans sooner!  Once the carnage starts, the “rules” are a little unclear as well as far as how the evil works.  You’ll see what I mean but this thing is so goddamn fun that no criticism I have spoiled anything for me personally.  A fun game to play with this would be to have a watch party with your friends and match the characters drink for drink.  Someone won’t make it I can assure you. 


K.  This movie deserves a lot of credit it for having a sense of humor about itself and not being filled with pretension.  The prologue lifted from Frankenstein (1931) and the Academy aspect ratio add a nice old-fashioned touch.  The actors do a good job of playing their archetypal characters and fitting into the period, aside from Tom Bailey who feels miscast as George, the lone American in the group. 

Once the action starts the film hits its stride with horror-comedy gore reminiscent of the Evil Dead and this is by far the most enjoyable section.  However, the faux Noel Coward banter and setup that leads up to this, consuming nearly half the running time, gets old very quickly.  That along with the green screen effects, that stick out like a sore thumb, detract from what would be an otherwise welcome addition to the horror comedy genre.

Response

C.  I do admit after resting on my experience that the movie spends a little too much time on the set up with the old timey dialogue and classic gothic acting that you get to a point where you just want to get to the fun. However, I stand with my initial response that a lot of issues I was willing to let slide because its is very fun and knows exactly what it is. I don’t believe in order to have an entertaining movie, it needs to have comedy like this but in a sea of people trying to make “elevated horror” it was extremely refreshing.

J.  I’m telling you, if you are a fan of the elements we’ve mentioned, you’re gonna love this.  There’s very little I have (or any of us) in the way of criticism and I think it’s due, in large part, to the fact that these folks knew exactly what they wanted to do and damn near did it perfectly.  On a personal note, it was my favorite of the festival.  A must see...


K. I haven’t really changed my stance on this one.  It had a much needed sense of humor and some good fun in the vein of Evil Dead 2, I only wished it started sooner with the gore and comedy and kept it up for longer.  The ending felt awkward because the film tried to shift gears and suddenly become serious and it didn’t quite work.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 4 1/2 out of 5

Director: Abner Pastoll
Writer: Ronan Blaney
Starring: Sarah Bolger

In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.

 is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, and Kyle Hintz

Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/

A recently widowed young mother will go to any lengths to protect her children as she seeks the truth behind her husband's murder. 


Initial Reactions

C. Now, the first half of A Good Woman is Hard to Find for me had potential for a stronger entry into the “person ventures into the criminal underworld to get revenge.” By having this widow form an uneasy partnership with a drug dealer, while both use each other for their personals, it offered an interesting moral dilemma for the protagonist. Have we seen it before? Sure but it was a strong dynamic. However, the movie becomes a paint-by-numbers plot for these type of movies and you’ll be able to predict every twist and turn. It also has the whole cold-blooded killers that have weird quirks thing, which has been going on for years but Tarantino made famous but that type of dark humor surprisingly doesn’t hit, because this isn’t the type of movie for it. 

What does set it apart is the performance by Sarah Bolger as the lead, Sarah. Bolger carries the movie with ease as a woman with such sorrow but must stay composed for her children. Credit is due to Pastoll for not falling into the cliche (or trap) with all the sexual content as at no point does it feel like the character of Sarah is sexualized for the audience. In fact there is constant remark of her “tired” look throughout. Of course when things go well she has more makeup and her hair is done so I guess you can’t escape it fully for this subgenre. 

Overall it’s exactly what you’d expect but if Bolger doesn’t get some big work after this then there’s something wrong with the industry.

J. Let me first point out that the title is fucking awesome and suggests some 70’s exploitation type of shit is gonna go down.  And to a certain degree it does I suppose.  The violence in the film is over the top sometimes while others, not so much.  There’s some hammer trauma that the camera shies away from on more than one occasion, which is too bad for me, maybe not others.  I thought a lot of it was humorous and I’m not sure that was the intention but it wasn’t a bad thing.  I’m talking in particular about some of the violence when I mention this.  Sick sense of humor folks will agree with me, I think.  As Craig mentions the character of Sarah is forced to form an allegiance with a douchy, drug dealing, thieving asshole guy with the worst haircut I’ve ever seen and I thought all of that stuff made for an interesting dynamic.  They both help one another out and form an awkward, if not successful partnership.  Things kind of get less interesting after that allegiance comes to an end however.  I’m also not sure why the story starts at the hour mark of the narrative only to “flashback” to how we got to that point.  Fellow writers, whether in film or novel form, know that this isn’t a good idea for various reasons.  This isn’t the first thing to use the device but I find that most often, you don’t need to do it and I think that logic applies here.  I also agree that Sarah Bolger does a great job of carrying the film as she’s virtually in every scene.  Sarah doesn’t necessarily become The Punisher but she would probably consider a date with Frank Castle after her ordeal in this film. 


K.  Alright, this is definitely one of the better Fright Fest films we’ve reviewed.  It starts strong with an interesting setup of the recently widowed mother, Sarah, and her kids, who are struggling to get by.  Meanwhile a scumbag named Tito rips off the local mob and ends up forcing the mother to stash the drugs for him while he deals, cutting her in as a partner.  The tension between these two characters is incredibly effective.

Unfortunately, once things boil over and the partnership ends, the narrative takes a more conventional turn with the mob closing in and Sarah discovering they are the ones responsible for her husband’s death.  The performances are solid all around, particularly Sarah Bolger and Andrew Simpson stand out.  The direction is on point and the writing is peppered with fantastically original moments (two scenes in particular involving a dildo), but then weighed down by some more cliched choices, especially the mob characters.

Overall, it’s very well made and worth a watch, but it feels like it squandered the potential of being something much more original than it turned out to be.

Response

C.  For me, this is something that would stay on my Netflix queue for years and maybe I’d watch the first 10 minutes several times. That’s not saying it isn’t good, it just turns into exactly what you’d expect from reading the synopsis. You’re left with a movie that doesn’t have the filmmaker’s unique voice but rather a series of lines and plot devices that have been copy and pasted from other films.

But I cannot stress enough that Bolger really shines and she definitely deserves solid work after this performance. Her portrayal of a woman having to bottle all her emotions for the sake of her children is devastating with so much subtlety. I have to repeat what Kyle stated, the first dildo scene had every opportunity to turn into a sexualization of Sarah but becomes this painfully awkward sequence that you just want to end. Her performance, along with Andrew Simpson’s is why I'd ultimately check out A Good Woman is Hard to Find on my queue and then I’d want to see what else they’ve done.

J.  This movie did a great job of playing with audience expectations… in a handful of places.  You’ll see exactly what I mean after Sarah gets drunk to celebrate something and you think you know exactly where the story is going to go but no!  Tricked you motherfuckers and does something completely unexpected.  Eventually, the movie totally stopped doing that and just played out exactly how the audience would imagine it would or should.  Especially when Sarah gets to the end and starts taking on the bad guys, there’s just nothing there that you haven’t seen before and maybe even done in the same manner.  I really liked this one a lot up to about the 45 minute mark and then I sort of thought it was okay for the remainder of the runtime.

K.  I have to agree with Craig here.  The performances are really the main attraction when it comes to this one.  Sarah Bolger and Andrew Simpson steal the show.  It almost would’ve been better just as a two-hander between the pair.  Ultimately, there were just a lot more interesting directions they could’ve taken this story, perhaps somewhere new, but instead a predictable plot reared its ugly head.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 3 out of 5

Director: Pedro C. Alonso
Writers: Pedro C. Alonso and Alberto Marini
Starring: Eddie Marsan, Ivana Baquero, Paul Anderson, Richard Brake 

In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.

Bloodhound Pix is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, andKyle Hintz

Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/

Jarvis Dolan (Eddie Marsan)  is the star host of ‘The Grim Reality’, a successful late night radio show. His whole life turns upside down when two armed, masked men burst into the studio taking him and his entire show hostage. They want Jarvis and his former co-host (Paul Anderson) to confess to a scandal that could destroy their lives and careers. However, Jarvis has no clue what they are talking about.


Initial Reactions

C. If you’re looking for a quintessential Me Too Movement-Thriller, you’ll probably stumble upon Feedback. This isn’t a bad thing, actually once the movie gets going I was at the edge of my seat, tapping my foot, trying to figure out the truth. I say this as the characters and event in question are so connected to the real life individuals (perpetrators and victims) and these crimes that it was difficult for the movie to stand on its own, because I was constantly being reminded of a real incident. Yet I didn’t feel the message was being crammed down my throat in a way that becomes patronizing as an audience member.

“If you want to send a message, use Western Union.”

I believe one of the reasons why the film doesn’t become “preachy” is that we are seeing this from the perspective of one of the alleged offenders. And Eddie Marsan is phenomenal as the type in question, a controlling professional that is hellbent on success. A large credit is also given to Ivana Baquero, as one of the victims exacting her revenge on the men. She plays the role with a strong command but also as a victim who is made to question her own memory of the event. Also, Richard Brake is in it and JESUS CHRIST he deserves way more credit. If I got to make a movie, I’d cast you in a heartbeat Mr. Brake.

It is mainly one location and if you’ve read my comments on prior “one location films,” you’d know that I think to make it work you need to have exceptional acting and a story that moves, because any lull is really felt but the viewer. I did find myself questioning how much longer it can go on about every 30 minutes because a major truth would be revealed to the point that you’d assume “the truth is out so it must be wrapping up,” that’s not the case, the whole story isn’t realized until the last few minutes.

There are questions of how in this skyscraper with modern technology, the security system/employees are scarce. I understand it is late at night but since we’ve established Jarvis has already been assaulted, kidnapped, and threatened recently before the movie begins, you’d think they’d beef up security.

The other major issue is if the people holding Jarvis hostage are actually the victims enacting their brand of vigilante justice, with Brake’s character, they’re willing to dispatch of innocents like it’s nothing. The argument could be made that their trauma affected them in such a way that they’ve gone mad but then it negates their intention for justice. So you’re left with rich, powerful, white men who use their status to do horrible things to people, however, the only way the victims will be heard is if they become monsters. Yes, you could suggest “it’s just a fictional movie, so don’t think too much into it” but as stated before with the content being so topical, Alonso didn’t allow himself the opportunity for the audience to separate art from real life.   


J. This was a decent thriller to be sure and the acting all around was top notch.  Richard Brake is phenomenal as he usually is but so is everyone else.  All of the characters were more unlikable than they usually are in something like this.  Yes, even the victims considering they killed people who had nothing to do with their agenda which also seemed to be a really long winded way of exacting their so called “revenge.”  I think they could’ve thought their plan through a little more if I’m honest.  We also don’t exactly know the truth of the allegations either.  Is the girl misremembering or is Jarvis just too stubborn to admit he did something terrible?  I really don’t know the answer but I kind of like it better that way.  The two gunmen were ruthless and brutal as all hell with creepy ass masks to boot.  I feel like once the masks come off though, they lose an edge that they had over Jarvis and the audience too. 


K. This was an interesting little locked-room thriller that touched on topical subjects such as Me Too, fake news and the online hysteria of social media.  Eddie Marsen gives a really strong performance in the lead as the brash radio host, and he is supported by a very talented ensemble featuring Richard Brake, Paul Anderson, Oliver Coopersmith, Ivana Baquero, Alexis Rodney, Anthony Head and Alana Boden. 

It all boils down to a Marsen trapped in his studio, on the air, as gunmen demand he reveals the details of a night long ago when things went out of hand at a hotel after party.  The core of this premise allows for the story to touch on the aforementioned topical themes, however the film begins en media res with rapid fire dialogue, almost like a play, and it is a bit difficult to find our footing as the viewer.  And throughout, though well directed and acted, something feels off the whole way through, something missing in the writing that I can’t quite put my finger on.

Response

C.  There’s no denying that the acting and technical quality of Feedback is on point. For me what it boils down to over these couple of days is its unwillingness to take a stance. The “victims” kill innocent people to get justice? Thinking back on it I would call it “Cinematic Clickbait” (Give me credit if no one has coined that term yet), because it deals with something very topical at the moment, yet it feels inauthentic and from a place of slight ignorance. It gives the audience the go-ahead to victim shame based on their horrible actions. It would make sense if all the deaths were staged in an elaborate ploy to get the truth out but no, they kill innocent people without remorse. Then it’s played out in a way that we’re meant to root for Jarvis even if he did play a part in the crime that is being mentioned.
But RICHARD BRAKE!


J.  I think there’s a real question of victim vs. bad guy here.  The longer the film goes on, the more you question who is who I guess.  And then there’s the real kicker where you don’t ever know the truth.  I can see how that’s gonna frustrate some folks.  I was fine with it as I like to make my own judgments about such things and the ambiguousness played fine with me but it does leave more questions than answers so be prepared for that.

K.  It’s competently made and the cast does a good job with the material, Marsan and Brake in particular.  This film just feels like it doesn’t know what it wants to be exactly.  I think Craig is right in that it feels like a drama-ripped-from-the-headlines idea, but then the filmmakers realized that didn’t really have anything to say on the subject.  In the end it feels like a waste of money and talent that could’ve been used to serve a better and more well thought out story.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 3 out of 5

The Furies utilizes a clever setup to arrive at familiar slasher territory.  While out tagging pedestrian tunnel, Kayla (Airlie Dodds) and Maddie (Ebony Vagulans) are suddenly abducted and wake up in a remote part of the Outback near an abandoned gold mine.  But they're not alone, a few other girls are also stranded there along with several slasher-style masked killers.   The killers and the girls have been implanted with cameras inside their retinas, these also act as shock collars of sorts making them unable to leave the area, and provide sadistic entertainment to unseen viewers.  Separated from Maddie, Kayla must fend for herself to survive and try to save her friend.

Initial Reactions

K:  The film delivers the requisite amount of gore while managing to add several unexpected twists along the way.  Airlie Dodds stands out as the final girl, grounding the film and creating a believable and strong character.  Overall, it was a solid and enjoyable watch, though I do think there was room for a bit more humor given the absurdity of the circumstances and perhaps a bit more to explore in regards to this all being streamed for the amusement of some wealthy sadists out there. 

C: You gotta give it to the Aussies. In a time where stuff is either too clean in an editing bow or homage-obsessed grindhouse sent into the land of parody, they are willing to make a movie that gives you all those dirty feeling of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the practical effects of the Hatchet series without it becoming a gimmick.
​
Based on the content of “helpless” women being chased by masked killers, I’m sure there will be a slew of articles labeling this as misogynistic. However, being that we are introduced to our main character as she’s watching her friend spray paint the words “fuck patriarchy” on a wall and lecture her about breaking the rules (socials norms), I think it’s safe to assume the misogyny is purposeful and a major theme throughout.

I think the female characters were as fleshed out as can be with a movie like this. Kayla’s journey progresses at a reasonable pace. She is called “helpless” by her friend, Maddie at the beginning and it’s not like when she arrives in this game, she’s instantly a badass heroine, in actuality she lets two women die that she could have helped. Also, I guess if you’re epileptic it allows you to see what the killers see and you have your blackouts at the perfect (or worst) time to move the plot forward. I was wondering who the killers were as you get a sense, they’re there against their will too or members of the criminally insane but it’s a story of these women and ultimately that question doesn’t matter.

My biggest issue is how serious it takes itself. The plot is ridiculous and enters the whole currently popular The Most Dangerous Game territory of rich people spending lots of money to see the 99% die in violent ways. The gore is over the top. The killers look like they could be Leatherface’s cousins. Even the female characters have their own random quirks. On paper it seems like a fun commentary on the slasher genre with 7 killers trying to kill 7 victims while each one must protect a victim their assigned, making them the ultimate “final girl.” It doesn’t embrace its weirdness and this is why I can see the movie being considered misogynistic rather than a piece critiquing misogyny. Without that release of tension and acknowledgment, we’re left watching a bunch of men, wearing human skins, torturing and killing women, and in turn how some of these women ultimately crack under the pressure and commit violence against their own gender. I’d like to say I’m reading too much into it but without that black comedic-nod that is even present in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you’re really only left with the message that’s being forced down your throat and the massive violence against women. ​

Director: Emma Tammi
Writer: Teresa Sutherland
Starring: Caitlin Gerard, Julia Goldani Telles, Ashley Zukerman and Dylan McTee

Lizzy and Isaac are experienced farmers used to being self-reliant in harsh terrain in the late 1800s Western frontier. So when Emma and Gideon settle nearby they try and help the couple obviously in over their heads. But Lizzy thinks the newcomers are strange and still coping with the recent loss of a child begins to wonder if the constant wind is a sign of an evil presence. Left for days on end as Isaac travels to replenish supplies, Lizzy could be suffering prairie madness because of the true horrors of loneliness and isolation.

Initial Reactions

C. The Wind highlights the harsh realities of women in the western genre, typically known for its masculinity.

I must admit going into this I heard constant reference to The Witch from critics and other viewers. It’s a slow burn, period piece, set in unsettled American, with a God-fearing woman as the protagonist. I can see the similarities but to chalk it up as this year’s “The Witch” does a disservice to both films, as they examine a woman’s role in two different cultures.
Though the atmosphere is front and center, I felt the presentation of Lizzy was the true standout aspect of the movie. As we are accustomed to, western genre’s females are usually (not always) placed as either prostitutes or pure hearted, damsels in distress, aiding in the man’s heroic journey. The character of Lizzy offers the image of what women truly had to face on the American frontier and the constant struggle between their femininity and the tough exterior needed to handle that lifestyle. It should be noted that until the end, Lizzy shows the least emotion out of any of the characters and she’s the one having to handle most of the hard labor tasks, both elements that primarily are given to the man.
The only major issue I had with the movie came from it taking the easy route in many instances. There are certain scenes that turn into haunting, jump-scares which felt like unnecessary moments used to remind the audience that this is a horror movie. Same with the character of Lizzy as a tough, German, frontiers woman, who falls into modern-day hysterics that feel slightly off from how she handles similar situations in another scene.
Ultimately the movie is a great dread-inducing slow burn that doesn’t overstay its welcome. I found the jumping timeline to be easy to follow thanks to strong editing, and it actually helped the story then if we were to see the events in chronological order.
 
J. I thought this film had some terrific moody atmosphere, a feeling of dread and despair and in case that wasn’t enough, it’s a period piece set in the 1800’s.  What a shitty time to be alive.  It might also be the first film I’ve seen about supernatural… land.  Outside of the Micmac Indian burial ground nothing comes to mind as having used this particular device before.  The chronology of the story was a bit tough to follow at times and I had to pay closer attention to the editing and where we were but it wasn’t problematic either.  I thought there were some genuinely well-crafted scares and bits of terror as well.  There’s quite a bit that’s left up to the imagination that worked well, including a bit with a feral wolf.  You feel for the character of Lizzy too since she’s alone for the majority of the story, with the exceptions being some flashbacks and she can’t really do much to save herself other than shoot whatever comes as a threat.  I guess that’s better than nothing though.  Funny, thing too, I kept seeing bottles of liquor in cabins, or what I thought were bottles of liquor but no one was drinking so I might’ve been wrong.  Given the horrific circumstances, I feel like it were me, some good 1800’s moonshine would do a damn fine job of taking some of the edge off.  The acting and production values were well done and although things moved somewhat slowly at times, the brisk runtime was more than enough to make up for it.

K.  The film had a polish and atmosphere that was a cut above most of the others we’ve been reviewing.  The filmmakers created a palpable sense of dread with very simple tricks and there were some genuine scares here.  While I liked the austere style, mirroring the environment of the story, I would’ve liked to see them go a bit further.  About halfway through they also began utilizing a flashback structure to fill out some backstory, which was fine, but then they skipped over certain events in the present and I found that to be a bit confusing as things went on.

The performances were strong throughout, particularly Caitlin Gerard who played the lead.  The production design did a great job of recreating the old west on a low budget, the costumes and sets come across as authentic.  The cinematography made great use of the landscape of New Mexico to create an idyllic and isolated feeling.  The special effects were really well done, not relying too heavily on CGI.  I think this was the 2nd best film of our Fright Fest series, just behind Come to Daddy.

Overall, it was a solid atmospheric piece, but I thought it would’ve been stronger if it either doubled down on the implicit mood or went for full on explicit gore.
Response

C.  As what was once known as “arthouse horror” has trickled into the mainstream more, we’ve found (multiple in this festival alone) many movies attempting to base their scares off of atmospheric dread over jumpscares, which I think is wonderful. However, the negative side to this, like with jumpscare-horror on the other end of the spectrum, are movies that are void of heart and substance and sold purely on atmosphere. The Wind succeeds to the point that I found myself wishing it had more tonal elements to really let us get lost in the world. There were many points where they could’ve really dove deep into the harsh living in that region, era, and how Lizzy’s German nationality played into that toughness.

To me, any of the outright scares felt forced to appeal to a general audience and took me out of the world, reminding me “oh right, this is a horror movie.” 

Any criticisms I have are mainly based around wanting to experience more of this world that Tammi created for us, which becomes more a compliment than anything.

J.  The Wind had a lot of what I personally enjoy on my horror film checklist: few characters with one lead, one location, psychological aspects, a feeling of constant dread and despair, loneliness and isolation.  As I stated previously, the midwest in the 1800’s had to be a shitty time to be alive and adding a supernatural problem is only going to make it worse.  The Wind plays on both the fictional difficulty and the real ones too and does a damn fine job of it. 

K. I agree with Craig to an extent, The Wind definitely succeeds most with the atmosphere it creates and is a bit light on substance but I enjoyed the horror sequences and didn’t feel they were tacked on to fit some arbitrary genre checklist.  If anything I wanted more genuine horror to creep in and a little less arthouse. 
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 4 out of 5

In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.

​Bloodhound Pix is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, and Kyle Hintz

Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/

Ginger Nuts of Horror's reviewer family has grown and today we welcome Craig Draheim, Kyle Hintz and Josh Lee who make up Bloodhound Pix  with their special three pronged review of Maximilian von Vier’s Suicide Club (2018)

Opening
Let’s say you’re in such a dark place that you’ve become agoraphobic and on the verge of suicide. Your only contact with the outside world is through forums for other suicidal individuals who berate you when you are not able to go through with killing yourself. Then one of these individuals suggests a place on the dark web called the Suicide Club that will guarantee your successful end but can also take care of people you don’t like and make their deaths look like suicides. However, you begin chatting with someone online who potentially reinvigorates your taste for living. Oh! And you’re dealing with a potential serial killer in your apartment complex. That’s a lot of ifs. We are Bloodhound Pix and this is Maximilian von Vier’s Suicide Club (2018).

Klariza Clayton (Skins and Lovesick) stars as Liz, a reclusive woman who has been locked in her flat for three years. Liz spends most of her time spying on her neighbors from her “tower,” as it’s phrased, or online on dating sites or forums for people planning on committing suicide. After another unsuccessful attempt to end her life, another member on the forum suggests looking up the Suicide Club, an urban legend whispered among younger people. When Liz finds the club online and passes their tests, she is given the command of “kill or be killed.” At first skeptical Liz gives the name of a drugged-out neighbor who annoys her and is shocked to find that that night, men break into his apartment and drug him to make it appear like an overdose. Soon, Liz realizes she must continue nominating others for the club or they will “choose for her,” all while she has found a new passion for life with Josh (Adam Newington), a new neighbor who is the ying to Liz’s yang.

Initial Reactions
C.  First of all, I give credit to Klariza Clayton.  Most of the movie she’s alone in her flat, which forces Clayton to carry the movie by herself. She gives many nuances to strengthen the performance and make her interesting to watch. With no fault to Clayton, the major issue with the character of Liz is the dialogue. Since a majority of the script has Liz reading or writing messages online, you’ll notice (and then it can’t be unnoticed) that she reads everything out loud, then she’ll speak to herself to make sure we (the audience) know what’s going on. Vier’s approach definitely “tell us” rather than “show us.”

The issue with a movie set in one location with primarily one actor is if it drags at all, you really feel it. I found myself at fifteen minutes checking my watch because it felt like an hour had passed.

The general premise is interesting with connections to 2001’s Suicide Club (or Suicide Circle) and Rear Window. However, the two movies I listed are drastically different from each other in terms of content, style, pacing, and tone. This makes the movie at times feel like two films in one; a recluse finding love while uncovering a potential serial killer in the apartment complex, and a cyber thriller about an online club where people upload suicide videos. I’m sure there’s a way to blend the two but for me when one of the plots starts to get interesting it then shifts to the other, leaving behind characters, plot devices, and even themes. There’s a whole sequence with a cop that threatens to come back but then disappears, same with the Suicide Club, which is vacant for large chunks of the movie while this romantic relationship is evolving.

I could be wrong but to me the movie felt like something that had been condensed to meet budgetary needs and Vier didn’t want to “kill his darlings” or at least stage their suicides.
 
J.  I guess for what basically amounts to a “single location” film, it’s neither the best or worst example of the exercise.  With such a simple premise, it does get confusing and boring pretty quick.  The opening shows Liz attempting suicide only to stop and get berated online by a bunch of mad bros (it’s the internet).  Five minutes later she doesn’t wanna kill herself anymore.  Another five minutes later, she’s in love.  And she’s a stalker.  And she’s agoraphobic.  And what is with those fucking intertitles with the, “+ 7 HOURS.”  “+ 12 HOURS,” “+ 4 HOURS???”  They don’t count down or up so what the fuck does it mean?  Is it to show how many hours have passed since the last scene?  Who fucking cares?  If so, why is that important?  I have no answer other than it adds to the confusion.  I don’t wanna pile all bad on this movie so lemme say that the actress isn’t terrible and does what she can to salvage it.  She’s in practically every goddamn frame of the thing so she better be somewhat interesting to watch.  The videos of supposed suicides that we see are somewhat disturbing a la SINISTER but nowhere near as effective or interesting.  Speaking of superior films, I found it hilarious that while watching the suicide videos and thinking that they’re faked or staged, she takes a dig at THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT which I didn’t understand at all considering it’s a far superior film and it’s so fucking old, that a lot of the audience for this film, might not even know what the hell she’s talking about.  I have to think the latter is what the director is hoping for. 
 
K.  To echo Craig, I give credit to the leads, Klariza Clayton and Adam Newington, for doing the best they could with very thin material.  The script by von Vier (not to be confused with Von Trier) lacks narrative drive, it begins with a decent enough set up, but then drags as the various plots develop episodically.  In between each episode the film fades to black and we see an arbitrary title card informing us that “+2 Hours” or “+16 Hours” or “+24 Hours” have elapsed between scenes, not only is this unnecessary as a simple fade to black would suffice in terms of implying a passage of time, but it seems to suggest a ‘ticking clock’, as if there’s some race against time, however that is not the case.

Technically speaking, the film is competently made.  The production design is spare given the use of one primary location.  The lighting is solid, making use of giallo-style reds and blues, though they do little to support the otherwise flimsy story.  However, the Rear Window type sequences, when Liz is spying on her neighbors and witnessing murders, etc. are filmed in such a flat way as to render the scenes lifeless and unengaging.  Overall, I found Suicide Club to be a tedious watch, the characters weren’t compelling and the thin story was stretched out to its breaking point.

Response

C.  Now with time to think, sadly my thoughts didn’t change on the 1st response and seeing my cohorts views suggests the major issues I had weren’t purely based on my own opinion. If anything, I feel we all can agree this is a great example of Clayton’s acting ability. Suicide Club feels like a movie with too many ideas that the filmmaker couldn’t figure where he wanted to go.
 
J.  And I remain confused as all hell.  I feel like the story needed more focus than it had.  As mentioned above, Liz changes her mind about things so quickly that it doesn’t ever give you time to get into her headspace because she behaves like someone with the most severe case of ADHD in recorded history.  A more apt title would have been MURDER CLUB but hell, CONFUSION CLUB works even better.  Not all bad by any means but direction and aim were too aloof too often. 
 
K.  Unfortunately, we were unable to reach Kyle for further comment on the film...he was later discovered in his home dangling from a noose, wrists slit, bag over his head, empty pill bottle on the floor, evidently the film had a deep influence on him after all.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 1 out of 5
​
In order to give what we believe to be a more unbiased constructive criticism of the piece, the members of Bloodhound Pix are tackling each review as a panel of three. None of the members know the others’ thoughts on the content until after they submit their initial response.
 
Bloodhound Pix is made up of: Craig Draheim, Josh Lee, and Kyle Hintz
 
Follow them at
https://www.twitter.com/BloodhoundPix
https://www.facebook.com/BloodhoundPix/
https:/www.instagram.com/bloodhoundpix/
​