HARPOON will be available on the ARROW VIDEO CHANNEL (and also Amazon Prime and Apple TV) from 18th October
​

CAST: Munro Chambers, Emily Tyra, Christopher Gray
Writer/Director/Editor Rob Grant
Producer​ Michael Peterson Kurtis David Harder

Life on the Ocean waves has never been so much bloody fun.

Rob Grant's latest film Harpoon, is a witty, bloody and tense psychological horror that manages to do the almost impossible and make a horror film about a trio of young Americans both funny, thrilling and captivating.  

I've never been quite sure who the plethora of horror films starring young and attractive Americans are aimed at. In most instances, the protagonists of these sort of films are typically so annoying, that within ten minutes you kind of wish the killer would level up with a nuclear bomb and wipe them from the face of the planet, before you have to endure another minute of their super tanned and ultra-white smug smiles. As my gran used to say "there is nought as obnoxious as an American kid in a horror film".  

Don't get wrong the characters in Harpoon are obnoxious and highly toxic, you'd hate to be one of their close friends, hell the film opens up with one of them beating the living daylights out of another one, just because he believes that he may have slept with his girlfriend. And that's just for starters, as the film progresses and the secrets and lies of their relationships are exposed for all to see not one of them ever comes across as anything other than utterly vile. But that doesn't matter, despite you never being able to root for any of them, Grant's witty and sparse script, combined with his assured direction means that you will be glued to the screen lapping up every minute of this nasty nautical thriller.  

Most of you will be able to count on the fingers of just one hand the number of great horror-comedies, it's one of the hardest things to get right, for every Shaun of the Dead there is a million Transylvania 6-5000s and a billion failed chances to raise a smile or shiver down your spine.  

Rob Grant's Harpoon hits the mark on both the horror and the comedy, in a film that perfectly balances personal drama, a few fantastically gory scenes, and sense of humour that holds everything together rather than getting in the way of the plot.  ​

One of the key features over and above the script is the perfect casting of the American Comedian and actor Brett Gelman, who provides a sly and sarcastic narration to the film, think Arrested Development mixed with Marvin the Paranoid Robot. Initially, you may be forgiven for thinking that the inclusion of a narration track to a movie that doesn't need it would be a step too far, but Gelman's delivery and the surgical precision of where it is inserted into the film is nothing short of pure genius. It never gets in the way and lays the foundation for a couple of running jokes that will have you doubling over with laughter. In fact, Gelman's narration helps to fill in several plot holes as well as going to explain just why these three desperate character's lives are so intertwined and codependent on each other. The narrator has a sort of voice of God feel to it, but this is not a loving God, oh no, he has nothing short of almost utter disdain for the protagonists. His recounting of seafaring superstitions comes across as an "I told you, but you wouldn't listen" checklist of why all these bad things are happening to you.  ​

The script is an excellent example of less is more. This is essentially a two location film with 95% of the film being set on the boat, which allows for the film to have a tremendous claustrophobic background for the tensions and fighting to play against. We know that there is no escape or respite for our three protagonists.  

Grant could have used the script as a look at the class war, and how the rich boys can basically do and say anything they want without any fear of reprisals, but Grant thankfully keeps this theme to a bare minimum. Instead, he keeps the script focused on delivering a strong look at toxic friendships, we all have them, and we all know we really should throw those people overboard, but, like the characters in the film, we just can't.  

There are echoes, of many literary and film classics littered throughout the film, such as Lifeboat, Alive, and even Moby Dick, the viewer will get a kick at pinpointing many of these nods to other films, while the secrets and lies and the truth about the interrelationships between the protagonists unfolds. ​

Chambers, Gray and Tyra are having a ball as the three protagonists of the film, as mentioned above they pull off the unheard off, and make each of the characters unrelatable and unlikeable, without ever crossing the line into "oh my God just die already". Even Emily Tyra's character, who initially is the most likeable of the three, quickly descends from her loving mother-like figure to a harridan of the highest order.  

​Christopher Gray excels as the spoilt rich kid with serious anger problems; strangely, he becomes the most likeable of the three despite being a complete piece of work. You tell he is relishing at being allowed to throw everything into this performance. Munro Chambers turn as the poor, put upon, Jonah is also a strong performance, only hampered by his somewhat meh character. I felt the filmmakers wanted us to have him as the focal point for our sympathy, but he ends up being just a bit too pathetic, and almost a caricature of what we perceive as everything that is wrong with millennials.  

Adding to the overall enjoyment of the film is an excellent sense of cinematography from Charles Hamilton, who brings a tremendous sense of style and atmosphere to these three people stuck on a small boat film.  

Harpoon is a brutal, dark comedy, and it is hugely enjoyable and highly inventive. You will laugh, cringe and scream obscenities at the screen as lies and revelations of our three protagonists unfold in front of you. 

Harpoon is a razor-sharp comedy, even if it is a speargun.   ​​

A comic book obsessed serial killer teaches his son how to get away with a series of brutal murders until the boy befriends a mysterious man who threatens to expose everything.
 
Initial Reaction
 
C. Artik is violent, jarring, punk rock, philosophical, and comes in at 70mins… What’s not to love? On paper it’s exactly my kind of movie.
 
The movie offers great effects and possibly Chase Williamson’s best performance to date. I found myself invested in where the story was taking us, while a serial killer tries to find someone he deems “pure of heart.”
 
This major issue is traced back to the killer’s motivation or the movie’s theme. Williamson’s character, who one would call “straight edge” and “pure,” potentially fits the killer’s ideal candidate. And when Williamson is captured and his purity is being put to the test, you half expect it to enter into the realm of Martyrs territory. Truly show this battle between good and evil in its raw form. However, this concept and world-building that has been established does not do well in the 70 minute time frame. This is one of the few cases where we needed another 20 minutes to establish more. There could be an argument for ambiguity but there’s a difference between things left ambiguous and plot holes… Artik suffers slightly from the latter.
 
Why does this couple keep child prisoners? Besides the main boy, why are these other children even necessary to the plot or the antagonist’s mission? Besides superheroes representing pure forms of good, is the comic-obsession needed to move the plot forward? Because we lose it by the end.  We are left with a lot of elements that could be expanded upon. The story doesn’t feel whole, rather a movie that was longer but cut down to fit a designated time frame, yet they forgot to simplify the story.
 
The other major concern that could connect with the hypothesis above is the editing feels very choppy. This could be argued that it’s because it’s a serial killer movie with punk rock vibes but as we’ve established the two battling characters are both based on a mindset of clarity. So is the ending a juxtaposition of that? That could be cool but it doesn’t feel purposeful.
 
Really it’s unique and enjoyable, with many moments to put you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately any of my criticism comes down to a lack of focus in the writing or editing, which could take this movie from a fun watch to something spectacular.
 
J. Pretty simple stuff… a guy kills people and is grooming his son to take over the serial killing mantle?  I think.  I’m actually not sure if this is correct because for some reason, the film was confusing.  In the beginning, the kid beats his head against a pole to kill an insect and I kinda felt like doing the same thing.  Why is this happening?  I have no idea.  The serial killer and his wife apparently kidnap children too, although I’m also not sure if this is correct.  Why does the guy love comics so much?  I have no idea.  What does that have to do with anything?  I have no idea.  Somehow, someone got Lauren Ashley Carter, Matt Mercer and Chase Williamson to agree to be in this so that was a solid move.  I’ve man crushed all over Chase Williamson since John Dies At The End and he’s the best part of this film.  There’s some pretty tense moments when the comic loving serial killer does his sadistic shit, especially the scene involving poor Matt Mercer.  There is also gore aplenty and lots of karo syrup.  I actually thought the score was pretty great too and helped to ratchet up the intensity in moments where it was used.  For some reason, this 77 minute film was not very clear to me as far as what and why many of the events in the story were happening but with that runtime, I’d forgive just about anything. 
 
K.  Ah, the heartwarming tale of a serial killer in training.  The first thing that happens in the movie is the boy headbutts a beetle approximately 20 times (I watched the scene a second time to get an accurate headbutt count).  That was one of the highlights. 
 
There’s a good grungy, backwoods atmosphere to the film and good gore effects, though there’s only a few instances where they’re used.  The performances are good throughout, except for Jerry G. Angelo as the serial killer/patriarch.  He’s not really suited to carry a film, most of the time it sounds like he’s reading his dialogue from cue cards while trying to do a Bane impression.
 
Even with the short running time there’s a fair amount of lingering on drawings and moments which slow things up a bit, but I’d guess that’s because there’s not too much in the way of plot.  The good guy tries to save the boy from his serial killer dad, that’s it.
 
Response
 
C. Artik follows an issue that’s popped up with a couple of movies we’ve reviewed recently. It’s in that purgatory of there’s a lot of ideas that go nowhere and would work if they were developed but if you cut all those ideas then you’d have a short film. I know the common comment on this critique is “well I wanted to leave stuff ambiguous.” Right. Kubrick’s The Shining, the work of David Lynch are perfect examples of ambiguity done right. The “ambiguity” in this movie are plot holes and lack of development.
 
That doesn’t mean I didn’t like it though. I think it’s a solid thriller with some great kills. I agree with Kyle that for it being only 70 minutes, the first half feels a lot longer. Once it gets going though, it had me hooked. And as a fan of Chase Williamson since John Dies at the End, I think this is his strongest work. This is one I’d highly recommend once it creeps onto one of the many streaming sites.
 
J. Looking back on this one, I just have too many questions about things that I really shouldn’t have questions about.  I made the comment above that it seems to come out of nowhere that the serial killing family also houses kidnapped children.  Okay, but why?  And when did they start doing it?  This is one of those ideas that could be cut and it would greatly improve the film. The strengths that it does have like the score and some tense scenes of brutality and sadistic shit mixed with gore are a delight but they alone can’t salvage what seems pretty salvageable.  Hell, even Chase Williamson couldn’t salvage this thing and he was the best part of the film. 
 
K.  I’d have to agree with Craig, minus the recommendation.  It’s got a lot of ideas that aren’t developed, it almost has a post-apocalyptic feel even, though obviously they don’t have the budget to get into that territory.  But long story short it feels like there was more stuff to explore in the story that was never addressed.
 
Bloodhound’s average score

Cursed demonic circus clowns set out on a vengeful massacre using tornadoes. A stripper, Elvis impersonator, truck driver, teen runaway, and a dude get caught in the supernatural battle between femme fatale and the boss clown from hell.
 
Initial Reaction
 
C. This comment will probably be made by the others but going in to a movie called Clownado comes with a certain understanding, a SyFy channel movie of the week. I’ll say on a positive note that this must have been a blast to make among friends who wanted to take their chances at making a movie. For finishing it, I commend them because it’s no easy task. 
 
The issue I have with a lot of these scary clown movies as of late is ultimately a clown is a performer with a level of charisma and talent (it’s a very difficult art that takes years to master). Yet, in the modern incarnation of the scary clown there’s no charisma or fun to convince us that they could maintain a show that people would even want to go see. This takes it to the extreme of these clowns feel more like goons from some 1940s noir that decided to throw on makeup for a quick buck.
 
This gets me into the script, which is based around murderous clowns and kind of a revenge plot but let’s not get too tied down to narrative shall we? 1/3 of the dialogue is written like a noir with all the cheesy lines and the voices to follow, 1/3 is written like normal present day speech, and 1/3 goes to extreme hillbilly stereotype. And none of them work. It’s obvious there wasn’t much focus, which is what could have taken the movie from what it is to at least enter the realm of Mystery Science Theater fans.
 
If you’ve been reading our stuff or know me, there is an understanding that I’ll ramble on about theory, throw out lots of references, play Devil’s advocate, all those joyous things to make you (the reader) bored… This time I’m truly at a loss for words.
 
J. Based on the title alone you would expect this to be something along the lines of the dumb-as-hell Sharknado films but surprisingly you would be wrong.  Somehow, this is worse.  The production had twenty-six producers who must’ve all pitched in their last $10.  The acting ranges from mediocre to downright atrocious.  Hardly any of the so called plot made a damn bit of sense.  The murderous clown gang were all annoyingly grating, especially the lead one, Big Ronnie, who the director must’ve told, “just act like the worst version of The Joker you can possibly do.”.  You’ll want to punch the mother fucker yourself after hearing his laugh for the second or third time and you’ll still have to suffer through it another fifty before the credits roll.  There’s grue aplenty but everything is shot in extreme close up for reasons I can only speculate and every body is filled with an orange jelly looking substance for some reason.  I will say that nothing ever really gets boring but that isn’t even close to being enough of a reason to sit through this thing.  For some damn reason, Linnea Quigley makes an appearance which has got to be a new career low for her.  I’m sorry it came to this Linneah.  To make matters even more complicated, the titular “clownado” is merely a way for the supernatural murdering clown gang to get around instead of getting from place to place in a tiny fucking car which might’ve been a slight improvement? 
 
K.  My expectations were low with a title like Clownado but they couldn’t sink fast enough to keep up with this disaster.  Let’s start with the acting.  It is community theater level all around.  The performances are wooden, awkward and hurried.  It seems as if the director forced his friends, who have no interest or experience, to be in the film.  There’s random close ups of “gore effects” which are really just lots of fake blood and hunks of fake flesh.  It’s not scary.  It’s not funny.  It’s just sad.  There are arbitrary drone shots in an attempt to fake production value, as if the audience would be fooled.  I don’t take pleasure in bashing movies, but Clownado exists and I watched...and I have regrets.  I would rather chug a gallon of diesel and swallow a match than watch this again.
 
Now that I think about it there is one redeeming quality about Clownado, it made me realize how little time we have in this life and how we shouldn’t squander watching films like this.
 
Response
 
C. I’d love to have a discussion on the movie but there’s really not a lot to be said. Clownado is what I’d call a “For The Laughs” movie. This does not mean it’s necessarily funny or “so bad it’s enjoyable” but it’s one of those ideas that doesn’t have enough substance to actually be made. Everyone in this creative field has some project that is ridiculous and was most likely birthed from you and your friends shooting the shit over drinks (I have one too). These ideas may sound like a blast when describing them but that’s all you’ll get from it.
 
J. Bottom line: this was rough to even get through.  For numerous reasons that we’ve outlined and some we probably didn’t just so we wouldn’t have to think about this fucker again.  For me there were two extremely important things that didn’t work in this film: 1) the story made no sense at all.  If we can’t follow what’s happening, you better be creative as all hell or it makes viewing a goddamn chore.  2) the acting was just God awful.  Again, this makes getting through anything a goddamn chore.  Better luck next time to these folks and hopefully the next film is watchable at the very least. 
 
K.  [See above, re: self-immolation]
 
Bloodhound’s average score: ½ out of 5

 

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

 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