HIGHS
 
C. As of late I haven’t been into horror-comedy since there was a recent period of time that we were over-saturated with them from indie filmmakers trying to make a name for themselves and be the next Shaun of the Dead or Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. However, I found this season the films that really stood out as unique, strong artistic voice and watchability were the ones willing to embrace the comedy. Come to Daddy and Here Comes Hell are two key examples of movies that one could find their influences but they were their own standalone movie and were a BLAST!
 
It’s difficult for me to choose between the two because they’re both in their own category. Come to Daddy is the better movie hands down, with an amazing script but Here Comes Hell was some of the most stupid fun I’ve had watching a new movie in a long time.
 
J. Here Comes Hell… that's it. That film was just so much my shit that I have to single that one out as my high. Come To Daddy was the most original and had the best screenplay without question. I still find myself thinking about The Wind and the absolute sense of dread and despair it presented. Everything I saw after these lost a step or more along the way in some aspect.  These were the top three of Fright Fest for me.
 
K.  Besides finishing all 10 films and reclaiming my freedom, it was definitely Come to Daddy.  That film more than any other gave me my money’s worth.  It was the only one which truly surprised me and continually developed in new and unexpected directions narratively.
 
LOWS
 
C. First off, as something that I’m sure will be mentioned by the other two, all the movies we are discussing were strong on the technical level but that’s not what we’re talking about, are we fellas?
 
Extracurricular was a wasted attempt on great social commentary and lack of character development. The Dark Red didn’t know what it wanted to be, which is why I will ultimately have a disagreement with the others and say this one was the most infuriating to me. I credit it for being a pretty movie but that, plus all the odes to the filmmaker’s influences can’t help a lack of vision, which I know Kyle really wants to discuss.
 
J. I don't wanna be that guy that bitches about shit and so I'm gonna keep this brief but Extracurricular was the one that almost broke me. Technically, it was more than proficient but that's kinda where my praise is gonna stop. Annoying characters and an ending that wasn't deserved in the slightest.
 
K.  Extracurricular, Dark Encounter and The Dark Red all demonstrated a high level of technical skill combined with a very low level of storytelling ability, which is something I want to discuss further in the DISCUSSION!
 
DISCUSSION
 
K.  I noticed a lot of the films were very polished technically yet very underdeveloped or poorly thought out from a storytelling standpoint.  They had great shots and camera moves, quality production value, but really nothing to say.
 
C. I can see that completely, Kyle. I think this same issue trickles into the nostalgia, reference/Easter egg-heavy movies/series as of late. There’s this point we’re at with technology now where anyone can make a pretty movie and that’s wonderful! I want everyone to be able to tell their story if they desire. But many of these movies now are replacing substance, heart, artistic voice, and engaging (they don’t need to be likable) characters with references or cool camera/editing tricks that 15 years ago would have been difficult to pull off without a higher budget. This is why I’ll give so much credit to Here Comes Hell. Is it flawed? YES! Can you spot it’s Evil Dead 2 influence a mile away? Y  E  S  !!! But it stays true to itself and is fun enough that you can forgive the blatant homages.
 
Does that mean in order to have a throwback it needs to be a comedy? Not at all. But it needs to remain itself. Dark Encounter seems like it’s based around the Close Encounter references, not that it’s its own movie with influences. Do we blame the impact of Tarantino, who uses the same cinematic shots or plot elements as the films that inspired his story? I don’t believe so because despite your feelings on the man, he makes the film his own. Django Unchained can be directly linked (he isn’t subtle) to many spaghetti westerns (even the name itself) but every minute of that movie I’m aware it’s a Tarantino flick.
There’s an issue that pops up in screenwriting now where everyone wants it to feel fresh… So the writer will do multiple drafts and a producer or someone will read it multiple times. To them the script becomes stagnant because of course if you’ve read the same joke or same scare it will lose its initial “wow” factor but this is for someone that’s read it many times, an audience hasn’t even seen it yet. Anyway, another writer is brought in or a complete reworking is requested in order to make it “fresh.” YAY! It’s fresh again for the producer, director, studio head, whatever. However, in doing that for their experience of the work, it might seem new to them but it’s lost all its fine-tuning needed to create a bulletproof script. This is why people instantly want to blame any issues on a poor script, which sadly can be the case but not for the reasons that the viewer is assuming.
 
Most of the movies in the festival probably didn’t suffer from that corporate interference that I just spoke of. What I believe the case is for what is deemed independent “genre” films comes from something I heard during my years as a projectionist with special screenings, festivals, premieres, and regular showings. There was always this arrogant attitude and aggression that came with independent festivals towards the technical staff. Anyone that’s been working those festivals long enough from that position will say it’s because filmmakers at that stage feel it is their first and potentially last chance to get into the industry. Their big break! Filmmaking isn’t a collaboration! It needs to be perfect! It needs to show who they are as a filmmaker! All they can technically accomplish! Which is why you have a romantic dramedy with an incorporated mob element that feels tacked on. Or in The Dark Red’s case you have everything plus the kitchen sink. Being a projectionist for those people sucks (HAVE RESPECT FOR YOUR TECHNICIANS, YA DINGUSES) but I get it, it’s scary. You’re at a point where this could mean a career or a project that you spent years on that disappears with no reward. In that fear of showcasing all of these elements to prove their worth, they forget the most important part of the process… Themselves. Only David Lynch can make a Lynchian movie (sorry folks) and only they (insert name here) can make a (insert name here)ian movie. Ultimately we live in a time where both companies and “genre” fans don’t want an original (insert name here)ian movie but rather something Carpenter-esque or Cronenbergian (well maybe not him so much)... Well… They don’t want it until they get it. The advice that John Gulager (Feast trilogy) gave me years ago that I keep with me is, “Make the best movie that only you can make.” Others have said it too and it’s simple but necessary for one to remind themselves that in a field where we’re constantly told, “we need something like (current big movie) or (cult movie title) meets (famous movie title).”
 
Now I bet you were expecting to start a whole tirade were you, Kyle?
 
K.  You pretty much covered the subject better than I could, Craig.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a wink and a nod to other films, and I love to trace back the influences and inspirations of my favorite films, but the issue here was the recycling of those influences without adding anything new.  That’s when it becomes a pointless exercise in style, in my opinion.
 
J. Whatever the issues were the result of, I'll never know and in the reviews we outlined the specifics in each case. The Dark Red couldn't decide what it wanted to be other than schizophrenic, supposedly like the main character. Dark Encounter started strong and then turned into a pseudo Arrival rip off of all goddamn things. And Extracurricular was… well, full of annoying as shit characters with an ending it doesn't earn in the slightest, not to mention other boneheaded things I don't even wanna think about. Now in contrast, my favorite 3 didn't have any of these issues which I suppose should go without saying but sometimes I state the obvious.
 
C. I think what’s interesting is how much is a reflection of what audiences want too… well some specific audiences fueled by rage and nostalgia that if it doesn’t go their way then they make petitions, boycott, send death threats, you know? All the fun stuff that comes with a fictional property apparently.
*Note: There was sarcasm involved in the sentences above, I do not believe any of that to be “fun stuff”
 
Over the last year I’ve seen so many comments from fans of the genre that are along the lines of:
Fanboy Voice “That’s why the best new horror movies are set in the 80s because you can’t get away with anything nowadays with modern technology”
This takes me back to when the 3 of us were finishing the MFA program and our mentor, screenwriter, Neal Marshall Stevens stated on the subject that, “If a cell phone is holding you back from telling your story, then you’re not working hard enough. Batteries die, bad reception, forget it/leave it as you’re being chased, there are a ton of reasons that can be solved with very little writing to establish that your characters don’t have cell phones.”
 
I may be overkilling the topic that Kyle opened the doors too but I think it’s an interesting discussion one should write about with better research than us. How much blame can you place on the filmmakers, studios, and fans? Or are they all at fault? Is it a chicken or egg scenario? People saying they “hate remakes and reboots” yet they will still go and see every one of them that comes out.
 
Am I ultimately fishing to have a more provocative discussion than is needed for our overall review of a horror film festival?
 
J. It’s everyone’s fault.  No one is without blame.  And that is certainly not true but it’s a question that will never have an answer.  Kinda like toxic fandom that Craig mentions.  My reaction is just to say, “fuck all those people!” and then complain about the Nightmare On Elm Street remake a little bit.  Speaking of Nightmare, I can’t wait for the news on… whatever we’re getting starts coming.  And you know it’s gonna happen. 
 
There you have it, the members of Bloodhound Pix have rambled through their first Frightfest. We’d like to thank Jim Mcleod and the rest of the Ginger Nuts of Horror family for allowing us the opportunity to discuss these films.

Director: Ant Timpson
Writer: Toby Harvard
Starring: Elijah Wood, Stephen McHattie, Martin Donovan

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/

Come to Daddy begins with Norval Greenwood (Elijah Wood) arriving at his father’s seaside home for an awkward reunion with said father (Stephen McHattie) who walked out on Norval and his mother 30 years ago.  The tension is palpable between Norval and his father, as it’s clear daddy is a man’s man and he despises Norval’s effeminate hipster clothing and his unassertive manner.  When things finally boil over between the two of them, daddy comes at Norval with a meat cleaver...and then keels over from a heart attack.  And that’s just the beginning, many unexpected and hilarious twists and turns follow. 

Written by Toby Harvard (The Greasy Strangler), Come to Daddy is delightfully original and unexpected, continually subverting expectations and finding humor in surprising places.  This is assured and impressive debut from director Ant Timpson. 


Initial Reactions

C. Recently I’ve dealt with a lot of stuff that sounds amazing on paper but just doesn’t live up to it’s synopsis, Come to Daddy is the opposite. The initial way it’s presented sounds like a dark comedy about a son connecting with his absent father but that doesn’t do justice for what is presented on screen. It’s a movie that knows exactly what it is and yet doesn’t fit a label. It has so many twists and turns with some leading nowhere and yet, you don’t feel cheated. Wood plays a character-type we feel we’ve seen him do before and yet it’s different, arguably with the exception of Maniac, it’s his strongest work. Every character has a moment where they get to steal the show and due to the professionalism of this cast it works seamlessly.

For me personally, I wish I could have been a part of the process for Come to Daddy. It was refreshing. You get a sense that there is such a unique and pure artistic voice telling this story that nobody else could do. This is Ant Timpson and Toby Harvard’s movie. And especially in a time when everyone wants to look back to the 80s for their nostalgia-based and avoid the dreaded cell phone dilemma, this movie proves that theory wrong. If you’re smart and talented you shouldn’t have to rely on a gimmick and fanboy references to make an amazing thriller.

J.  This is one of those films that you should not read anything about prior to seeing it.  Hell, don’t even watch a goddamn trailer for this weirdo fuckin’ thing!  Elijah Wood is an amazing actor, we all know this, but here (looking like a fuckin’ weirdo) he rules the screen in this extremely odd film.  The script is fuckin’ magnificent and has so many twists and turns and false leads that if you try and tell me you know where it’s going to go, I would have no problem calling you a liar.  It works a lot of genres into itself and pulls it all off which is a fuckin’ godsend.  Thriller, supernatural horror, odd ball comedy, black comedy, it’s all in there somewhere and I couldn’t have loved it more.  Get yourself a stiff drink and relish in this mother fucker cuz this is the one of the best of Fright Fest without question. 


K.  I absolutely loved this film.  It’s easily one of the best of Fright Fest thus far.  The performances all around are fantastic, Elijah Wood plays the cowardly hipster man-child Norval to a T, Stephen McHattie sinks his teeth into the role of abusive estranged daddy like no other, even down to the supporting cast, Martin Donovan, Madeleine Sami, Michael Smiley, and Garfield Wilson, who steals his one scene as cop. 

This could have been a by-the-numbers indie drama that just took the premise of estranged father and son reuniting and stretched it too thin.  But thankfully Harvard spirals the narrative off in another direction and continues taking unpredictable turns along the way.  I had no idea where this was going through the majority of it and it made for a hilarious and enjoyable ride.

Response

C.  I will echo what Josh said about watching this movie with as little knowledge as possible because it is a wild ride that is best enjoyed going in blind. It’s a movie with thrills, laughs, beauty, heart, philosophy, and wicked fun. In a time where everyone wants to show how serious and “artistic” they can be, it was a breath of fresh air to see such a unique vision come to life from a person that also remembered to let us enjoy ourselves too.

J. Seriously, this is a must see.  As I look back at it, I think one of my favorite things about it is the script switching genres like it’s nothing and how funny it is when it happens but also how smart.  We aren’t reviewing everything out of Fright Fest but this is going to be one everyone is talking about.

K. The more I think about this film, the more it stands out as the best of the Fright Fest films we’ve reviewed.  Due in large part to the incredible and wholly unpredictable script by Toby Harvard.  It really hammers home my issue with most of the other films: they didn’t have great stories to start with and thus their films were competently shot, but mostly lifeless.  And Come to Daddy is the opposite, it could’ve been less polished and gotten away with it because the story compels you to keep watching.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 5 out of 5

Director: Dan Bush
Writers: Dan Bush and Conal Byrne
Starring: April Billingsley, Kelsey Scott, and Conal Byrne

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/

The Dark Red tells the story of Sybil Warren (April Billingsley) who is committed to a psychiatric ward by her physician after her baby supposedly died in childbirth. With a long list of past trauma and schizophrenia, Sybil must convince her therapist of the truth, that her baby didn’t die but was stolen by a cult, if she wishes to get out. 

Initial Reactions

C. I’m down to two alternative titles for The Dark Red, either The Exposition or The Unprofessional Therapist, I’ll let you decide.

I am all for a patient telling a therapist how they got to the place they’re at now, hell, I’ll defend Carpenter’s In the Mouth of Madness any day of the week. Usually when this format happens, the patient starts talking and then the movie goes into play with the patient/therapist scene acting as bookends. Here, the first third of the movie is primarily flashbacks with Sybil narrating… but that’s not all. We continuously jump back to the patient/therapist scene which goes into basic information of schizophrenia, memories, pregnancy (well, as accurate as you can get with two male writers), and other topics. The therapist. makes it well known that she doesn’t believe Sybil and constantly breaks her professionalism by adding personal opinion. Part of the intrigue initially of a movie like this is, “did Sybil make this up to deal with the trauma of losing her baby or is this baby-stealing cult real?” This ISN’T A SPOILER since it’s established early on but she’s telling the truth. Once we know this information the story does one of its many shifts.

On a side note: As a happy new father, I don’t think the story is doing its job if I’m unaffected by her plight and I think if it was all fantasized, I’d be more satisfied by the end. By satisfied I don’t mean all questions have to be answered, I actually believe some of the problems arise from trying to explain the reasoning behind every element. 

As to not spend too much time, here is a list of all the elements that pop up randomly that have you going, “huh, so this is what’s happening now”:
- Sybil doesn’t have schizophrenia. It’s all true. 
- She’s telepathic
- Her baby communicates with her on a psychic level. “You mean like Prevenge or Baby Blood? No? Oh, we’re dropping the baby thing now?”
- The baby’s father’s family is a cult looking to steal Sybil’s baby to harvest because she has special blood.
- Where’d this underground fortress come from?
- Illuminati conspiracy
- Sybil is now Sarah Connor in Terminator 2.
- Wait… she can have Scanners-like mind battles now?
- Other stuff

This all being said, there is one chunk of the movie that hits really well, and that is when her baby is being removed and then she has to escape the complex. The look and feel reminded me of something out of the French Extremity movement (with less gore of course). However, as quickly as we entered, it leaves for the sci-fi conspiracy thriller/revenge genre. 

Complaints aside, it’s shot well, looks clean, and has solid effects. Based on his influences and with focus, Dan Bush could create something I’d gladly get behind.

J. I’m a sucker for the “is the character crazy or is the outlandish story they believe actually true” scenario.  This aspect of The Dark Red works pretty well especially when the therapist has all the “evidence” to negate Sybil’s story.  How the therapist came up with all the “evidence” is anyone’s guess.  Is she part of the conspiracy?  Who the hell knows.  With how unprofessional she acts toward Sybil I would assume the answer is yes.  Anyway, this thing has everything in it and then when you wouldn’t think it could throw anything else into the mix, it’s revealed that Sybil is actually one of the X-Men.  Not really, but not a stretch either.  There’s also a lot of Sybil and her therapist talking.  Nearly half of the film these two talk to one another.  It helps that we get the scenes in flashbacks but still… that’s a lot of fucking talking!  And then once we are let in on the secret that Sybil isn’t crazy, she displays her X-Men abilities again and learns tactical weapons training in what amounts to about ten seconds, hence Craig’s Sarah Connor reference.  All around, this is a hard one to wrap your brain around because the film itself has some schizophrenic qualities. 

K.  This film starts off as is-she-crazy or isn’t-she-crazy thriller, that then morphs into a conspiracy thriller with psychics and then finally a revenge film.  In other words, it’s all over the map, and if they pulled it off I wouldn’t complain, but they don’t.  Unfortunately, this is another case of poor writing.  Bush and Byrne drag out the set-up with a series of lengthy flashbacks explaining the backstory and in doing so relying heavily on voiceover narration.  The thing is, all of this could have been greatly condensed but it’s drawn out to reach a feature running time.

The actors do what they can with the material, particularly Billingsley, unfortunately it’s hard to connect with the story and as such you’re really not drawn into her journey.  The one exception to this being Conal Byrne, who stands out like a sore thumb, the scene where he picks up Billingsley at her adopted mother’s funeral shattered my suspension of disbelief.  The back and forth between Billingsley and the therapist leads up to the oh-so-obvious twist that her baby was taken by an elite group who kidnap children with psychic powers, to what end is never revealed.

There’s some decent ideas here, but they are stretched too thin and the film’s flat Lifetime movie like aesthetic is mind-numbingly bland.  How this got into Fright Fest I will never know.

Response

C.  There’s the bones of an incredible movie (or 3) inside The Dark Red to fill my body horror and pregnancy terror-loving heart but it is sporadic and spends most of the movie telling how smart it is with cinematic pseudoscience.

Watching it feels like the filmmakers decided to throw everything they loved in because they didn’t want to waste this one opportunity. It’s a psychological horror, pregnant horror, conspiracy thriller, and sci-fi action.  All of those things I am totally down for but together it feels like it comes out of nowhere.

J.  For me, this is a problem of too much going on.  The “is she crazy or not” angle is a terrific starting point and I felt the strongest thread in the story.  Psychic abilities, extremely rare blood, conspiracy cults with underground lairs with asshole doctors performing cesarean surgeries… and we haven’t even gotten to the Sarah Connor bit yet… or another element I might be forgetting.  It’s never really boring but it is schizophrenic as all hell.  That diagnosis is easy to determine.   


K. This film had a lot of interesting ideas that really didn’t go together.  My main problem here was the so-called twist revealing that the protagonist isn’t crazy, but is in fact telling the truth, which we spend 30 minutes or so debating, was immediately obvious.  That and the filmmaking style was so generic and passionless.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 1.5 out of 5

Director: Carl Strathie
Writer: Carl Strathie
Starring: Laura Fraser, Mel Raido, Alice Lowe

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/

A year after the mysterious disappearance of their 8 year-old daughter, grieving Olivia and Ray return home with friends and family from her memorial service in their small town. Suddenly strange lights appear in the nearby forest and everyone is exposed to inexplicable phenomena shaking them all to the core. The origin of these weird incidents seems to be visitors from another world intent on terrorizing the family. But what they don’t realize is that these visitors will eventually lead them to an unexpectedly dark and disturbing truth - one destined to impact on their lives forever. 

Initial Reactions

C. Yes, we all know Steven Spielberg from his hit film, 1941 but two years before its release he came out with a little gem called Close Encounters of the Third Kind. If you’ve heard of that film, you’ll recognize many similar technical and plot-device elements in Carl Strathie’s Dark Encounter. Personally, I like Close Encounters way more than Jaws, I know it’s a blasphemous thing to say in the horror community, so my drawing connections between the two movies may go unnoticed by others. 

However, I feel Dark Encounter falls into the sad trend of movies/shows lately (*cough* Stranger Things *cough*) that are so obsessed with making sure the audience knows the director’s influences that they’re unable to stand alone as their own piece of fiction. Do we need a Close Encounters bright yellow lights shining through the windows and cracks in the door? The Interstellar stuck in a place between time and space sequence? Set in the 1980s? Are all of these things needed to tell the best version of your movie possible or are those things just in there to “fanboy-out” for 100 minutes? With a lot of these cases I find myself thinking if there’s going to be so many references to a beloved movie then I’ll just watch that instead.

With my little rant out of the way, I think the first half of the movie is incredibly strong with a lot of great performances from some acting heavy hitters (special shoutout to Alice Lowe of Prevenge and Sightseers). Sadly a lot of the characters that seem the most developed and the story highlights are initially the first to disappear, leaving us with Olivia (Laura Fraser), who is either vastly underwritten or unable to carry the movie by herself. It felt like she’s a side character in her own story, even when she’s all alone. For reasons like that I’ll give Fraser the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an issue from the script.

In the end, technically its strong with lots of cool lighting work, great acting from the supporting characters, and has a suspenseful first half. But it goes into well-known territory and relies too much on the past successes of cinematic giants that Dark Encounter is unable to stand on its own.

J. Aliens really don’t like the human race.  And who can blame ‘em really.  Craig picked up on some astute observations about the film so I’m not going to rehash his take but this film was a sort of long winded way for aliens to basically tell a family that they (the aliens) weren’t responsible for a couple’s missing daughter.  And like goddamn Arrival of all things, the aliens are actually going to help the grieving family out but before that they are going to torment the ever loving shit out of them for some fucking reason.  Characters disappear and reappear out of fucking thin air more than once and then act like it’s a completely normal thing to happen.  They are dealing with aliens.  Another funny thing, not one character mentions the “A” word during the course of events.  Not.  Fucking.  Once.  Even though it’s pretty obvious that’s the antagonist they’re dealing with.  But wait, they really aren’t the antagonists, I forgot.  Too bad Amy Adams wasn’t there to help with understanding this one. 


K.  Watching Dark Encounter it is clear that Carl Strathie, the writer-director, saw Close Encounters of the Third Kind and it had a profound impression on him.  This is understandable as it is a great film, Dark Encounter however is not.  The entire film seems to be an excuse to bathe the actors in orange and blue light and ask them to stare into the camera in Spielbergian wonder at some unseen marvel.  This pattern repeats.

The actors do what they can, but unfortunately there is little story to speak of and no emotional entry point into the non-existent narrative.  The script is thin.  The lighting is fantastic.  That about sums it up.  Oh, I forgot to mention it’s set in the 1980s.  Nostalgia Porn checklist complete.

Strathie should go back and watch Close Encounters again and take notes.  In the film, the audience experiences the first encounter right along with Roy Neary, no one else is present, as such we share an emotional experience with the protagonist and are thus bonded.  Then in subsequent scenes as the validity of Roy’s experience is questioned we are emotionally stirred, we feel personally attached because we shared that experience and can vouch for its authenticity.  This is how a story works.  This is not how Dark Encounter works.  No such emotional connection is created between the audience and the characters, instead we share the experience of watching a 90 minute lighting test.

Response

C.  Dark Encounter suffers from the nostalgia craze that has been used a lot over the last few years, and like many of them they’re so focused on presenting the audience with easter eggs or homages of their influences that they forget to make the movie their own. This isn’t an exception.

Despite a wonderful cast and the technical aspects looking/sounding great, it proves meaningless without substance and (as Kyle stated) an emotional connection.

J.  After the daughter goes missing in the first reel, there’s some intense family drama stuff that picks up a year later that I thought worked pretty well and then the alien shit starts and it remains strong and interesting up to about the 30 minute mark.  I enjoyed the initial alien “attack” on the family house very much but then the downhill stuff starts, specifically after the first night is over.  You’ve read the film that my two colleagues have likened this one to and I agree with them but for me, Arrival was too big an influence as well although not as prevalent.  I actually sort of wish this was played out like aliens wanting to kill or abduct some family that lives in an isolated farm house and they have to fight back.  I really think that would’ve been more entertaining.

K. My biggest problem here was the filmmaker didn’t take his time to digest his influences and incorporate them into something new, instead we got a less interesting rehash.  I felt like the initial drama of the missing daughter was okay but again they didn’t use that as a way to create emotional connections between the audience and the characters.

I agree with Josh about Arrival being an influence and Interstellar, as Craig mentioned and I agree it probably would’ve been more interesting as a straight up alien abduction/siege film.  The way it plays out with the ‘good aliens’ twist kind of makes the entire hour build-up a moot point.  The idea that they took the daughter and came back to abduct the rest of the family isn’t the case, and the whole long sequence of the family running and hiding from the aliens, which is the bulk of the movie, was unnecessary too.
 
Bloodhound’s average score: 1.5 out of 5