“Preservation” (2014)

I have to admit to being a big sucker for these “backwoods brutality” films, which usually involves a couple, or a small group of people, isolated in the woods (“Deliverance” probably being the best example) or desert (like in the case of “The Hills Have Eyes”) who are being hunted down by a killer or three.  Often times these type of films will involve ultra-realistic violence that tends to push the one character left standing to have to revert to their repressed animal nature just to survive.  For a film like that to be most effective though, it has to unfold in a way that makes you feel like the sequence of events going bad do so in a fashion that is both believable and leaves you feeling like it all could’ve happened to you if you were in the same situation.  Sadly, “Preservation” fails to do either.

The film opens with Wit (Wrenn Schmidt), her husband Mike (Aaron Staton of “Mad Men”) and his brother Sean (Pablo Schreiber) driving to what appears to be a derelict State park for a weekend camping trip.   Wit is hoping this weekend getaway will give her a chance to reconnect with Mike, who is often aloof and focused on his career, while Mike is hoping to reconnect with his brother Sean who has just been mysteriously discharged from the Army for post-traumatic stress syndrome.  Upon arriving at the park, they find the parking lot roped off and the playground equipment in shambles.  Why these people want to go camping in such an environment is beyond me?

While hiking to their campsite, we’re treated to constant “you remember the time when…” stories (which have no bearing on the film) and a little flirtation between Wit & Sean - that doesn’t go unnoticed by jealous hubby Mike.  We’re also given a little monologue about how animals kill to survive, while man is the only animal that kills for pleasure, which is foreshadowing what is yet to come in such a painfully obvious way.

The next morning, our protagonists awake to find that everything in their camp has been stolen, including THE TENT THEY WERE ASLEEP IN!  How anyone can sleep through a tent being stolen out from under them totally defies believability, especially considering ex-military man Sean was asleep just outside their tent, as he too failed to see anyone!  Not only that but they also abducted Sean’s German Shepard as well.  Mike instantly assumes that it’s Sean and that this is all a product of his mental disorder, and even implies that Sean is trying to run off with his wife that he’s not been paying attention to.  Truthfully, I found Mike’s accusations even more absurd than the tent being stolen, as why (and how) would Sean steal their equipment and then also take his own dog?  A weird practical joke maybe, but because of PTSD?  Really?

I’m going to cut to the chase and just say that all of this is the work of three teenage boys (each wearing masks and riding mountain bikes) who seemingly are hunting down the trio because…well, they’re bored and thought it might be fun?  I can’t say because the film offers no clue as to their motives (outside of the aforementioned monologue).  What I also don’t get is why they would even steal their tents (despite how impressive it is that they could pull off such an amazing feat) or anything else, other than the hunting rifles the trio had brought with them?  If they wanted to re-enact “The Most Dangerous Game” with them, I think it’s safe to say Wit and the two brothers would have to ditch their camping equipment once they realized what was going on anyway.  Also, having the killers be teenagers only creates more problems in that in one scene one of them gets a call from their mother asking where he is, yet these kids have supposedly been out tailing the main characters for well over 24 hours (including stealing tents in the middle of the night).

The film that kept going through my mind while watching this was the far superior “Eden Lake” (2008), which also revolves around a couple camping in the woods who run afoul of a group of nasty youths.  In that film, there is a sense of growing tension between the couple and the teens that eventually erupts into violence.  Here though, the teenage killers come out of nowhere with zero build up, which defuses any kind of possibility for suspense.  The teen killers in this are more akin to what you would get in a slasher film than what you normally see in a survival type film like this.  Also too, in “Eden Lake” the chain of events flowed in a way that was logical in regards to the characters’ actions based on what was going on around them.  “Preservation”?  Not so much.  Again, much like a slasher film, you have characters performing actions that make you just slap your forehead.  For example, in one scene Mike is being chased by a killer with a rifle and happens upon some port-a-potties.  Ignoring the fact that the killer is right behind him and well within sight, he chooses to hide inside one of the potties, and even locks the door for good measure! 

I think because the film lacks any sense of reality or logic whatsoever, I tried to let it slide and take it as being more of a slasher film instead.  But even there, the film completely lacks any scares or even good kill scenes that would’ve justified that.  Ultimately, what I was left with was just a very silly attempt at a survival film, with blah performances and nothing in the way of suspense.  Definitely not a film worth "preserving", that’s for sure!

4 out of 10 for me.

"Afflicted" (2013)

Reading up on this Canadian horror film by first time directors (and stars) Derek Lee and Cliff Prowse, I wasn’t surprised to learn that the earlier premise of this was not to make it a “found footage” horror film, but rather into a web series.  Initially it would’ve appeared as if this was a legitimate video blog chronicling a trip across the world by the two filmmakers…but then slowly things would start to change and it would become evident something was horribly wrong with Derek.  In the film itself, that’s actually what we get and it’s told so convincingly, that had it been an actual web series, I think it would’ve seriously blown the minds of those watching it – at least those who might’ve thought it was all legit (up until a certain point anyway).

The movie opens by introducing us to both Lee & Prowse as they are preparing to start a year long trek across the world.  Derek is someone who loves to travel and craves adventure over sitting in his cubicle at work.  His close friend, Cliff, is a filmmaker and wants to document the trip every step of the way and post their journeys onto a website for all to follow.  There’s only one hitch to their plan.  Derek has been diagnosed with a cerebral arteriovenous malformation (or AVM), which in short means he could have a brain aneurism at any point which could kill him.  Despite warnings from his doctor and his family pleading for him not to go, Derek presses on with the trip anyway.

After arriving in Paris, Derek meets an attractive woman at a local club, who returns with him to his hotel.  Upon discovering Derek has finally gotten lucky with a lady, Cliff decides to pull a prank on him by charging into his room.  However, upon doing so, he discovers Derek in a state of unconsciousness and bleeding from his head and arm, with no sign of the woman anywhere.  When he comes to, Derek has no memory of what happened after he left the club, but decides he’s not in need of any medical assistance and would rather forget about it.  Could this memory loss be a part of his condition or has something far worse befallen him?

Soon after though, Derek starts finding himself drained of any energy in the daytime, while at the same time his body rejects any type of food he ingests quite violently (there’s one scene where after trying to eat his lunch at a restaurant, he projectile vomits it all over the floor – which I’ve actually seen this clip many times before as a GIF on Tumblr, not knowing it’s source).  It becomes pretty clear that what Derek has become “afflicted” with is not some kind of Ebola virus or the like, but rather he is slowly morphing into a vampire. 

I know there are many detractors of the “found footage”/”shaky cam” sub-genre (though I myself am not one of them) and just the mere mention of it is enough to turn people away from a film.  However, “Afflicted” is quite well put together and somewhat unique in its approach to the whole first person narrative.  By rigging up the actors with cameras on their chests for example, we see some truly great visuals of Derek leaping from building to building as he’s testing out his new found powers (in a scene that very much felt like “Chronicle”) in what looks to be some fantastic stunt work (especially for a film that only cost $300,000 to make).  Some of the other action sequences seen later in the film feel very much like a first person shooter game brought to life, with characters shooting at the camera while Derek is racing through hallways trying to dodge them.  I also dug some of the very effective jump scares used in the film by the placements of certain actors in a way that not only startles the viewer, but also communicates the further devolution of Derek’s state (as opposed to just throwing in a jump scare for the sake of a jump scare).

The other thing I think worth mentioning are the performances by both leads.  In particular Derek Lee, who manages to convey a sympathetic character that is struggling to hang onto his humanity, even in the face of impending trans-formative changes that are going to ultimately make him into a voracious monster.  I felt for his plight and wanted to see him work his way through this nightmare by finding some kind of cure for himself.  The film really pulled me in that regard, which is hard to do for a found footage kind of film, as usually the main actors are behind the camera which inhibits their performances (see my review of “Nightlight” as an example).  Here though they have found a way to place the cameras in multiple places to where we can actually see the actors’ faces for a change and witness the emotional toll everything that is transpiring is having on them.

If I have any complaints, I do think the idea of carrying over the blog site posts from their initial web series concept didn’t quite work for me.  There were times I was questioning the logic of why Cliff would post certain vampiric events on this site for others to see (especially some of Derek’s more…”illegal” activity).  I think if it had remained a web series, it would’ve worked better within that format, but as a feature film it starts to strain credibility somewhat. 

Overall, I found “Afflicted” to be a fun ride from beginning to end.  I loved how it seemed to be paying homage to “An American Werewolf in London” (though in this case it would be “An Asian Canadian Vampire in Paris”) and doing so in a rather resourceful and inventive way.  For everyone who argues that they’ve exhausted the “found footage” sub-genre over the last five or so years, something like this comes along and demonstrates there’s more than one way to skin a cat (or in this film’s case, “drink a pig”).

8 out of 10 for me.

"Nightlight" (2015)

There was once an episode of SyFy's hit series, "Destination Truth" (which, for those unfamiliar with it, is a kind of hybrid of paranormal TV shows and travel documentaries) where the series' star, Josh Gates, and his team of investigators traveled to Japan to explore the "Suicide Forest" at the base of Mt. Fuji, known as "Aokigahara".  That area is renowned for what some estimates say are an average of 100 suicides committed there every year.  Now, while I take any reality TV shows as being anything but "reality", this episode really stood out to me as one of the creepiest TV shows I had ever watched.  The whole thing felt very much like "The Blair Witch Project" (1999), with the cast hiking through this thick forest at night, hearing strange noises and even finding buried belongings that were left behind by suicide victims.  At the time I was watching it, I thought to myself how this episode could be the basis for a truly great "found footage" film.  The very idea of a haunted forest filled with the souls of those who had willingly took their lives seemed rife with possibilities to me.

Enter "Nightlight" (2015).  A "found footage" film that opens with a young teen boy named Ethan (played by Kyle Fain) who is leaving his suicide note, if you will, on his computer via his webcam.  Ethan announces his plan to kill himself in the Covington forest (which, much like Aokigahara, is known as a suicide spot for those in despair), all due to being snubbed by a girl named Robin (played by Shelby Young from "American Horror Story").

The film then cuts to Robin driving out to the Covington forest at night to meet up with four snobby teens, Ben (Mitch Hewer), Nia (Chloe Bridges), Chris (Carter Jenkins) & Amelia (Taylor Murphy) in an effort to both become a part of their clique, but also to get closer to Ben, whom she's secretly crushing on.  Turns out they're there to play some kind of hide & seek game called "nightlight" (it's not just a clever title), where one person is blindfolded and has to count to 100, while the others hide.  Then, if that person can't find anyone, they're supposed to yell, "Nightlight!", and the others all shine their lights to reveal their locations (I should note that these flashlights all apparently have Go Pro cams mounted to them, because the entire film is supposedly shot from the end of each characters' flashlight for us to see through their vantage point).  Why college bound teens would want to play such a childish and dangerous game (one character even notices a bear trap in the foliage but never thinks to call off the game?) is beyond me?  And why would Robin herself want to play around in the very spot her friend Ethan killed himself at when she is supposedly feeling so much guilt over his death?

Regardless, it doesn't take too long though before they start hearing strange noises and become aware of some kind of presence in the woods. The problem is what it is that's stalking them is never clearly defined.  Is it a demon trying to take possession of their bodies or could it be the spirit of Ethan taking revenge?  Here again, much like "Devil's Backbone Texas", we have another example of a "found footage" film that wants to be vague about what is truly going on, but rather than heighten any sense of mystery, it only serves to create confusion.

And speaking of confusion, I found myself having a hard time making out just what was going on around each character at any given time, as the flashlights (ie: the cameras) keep flickering in an out, in what feels like an attempt to create tension, but instead proves to be quite irritating.  That and the non-stop of footage of people running with cameras in the woods which we've seen done a million times over by now.  With the way it kept inter-cutting between character's points of view, half the time I wasn't even sure which character's camera/flashlight I was seeing through?

I think though the biggest problem for me with this entire film was just how on the nose the screenplay was.  I've found that "first person" films work best for me when much of the dialog is allowed to be improvised by the actors to some degree, creating more of a sense of realism.  In this film, it's overly scripted and because we can't see the faces of the characters who are filming, we're often treated to goofy dialog that goes to great lengths to explain what the character is thinking (something like, "Oh, why did I come out here in the woods at night just to impress a boy?").  Because of it I was taken out of the film right out of the gates and never could buy anything that anyone was saying, as it all felt so manufactured.

Overall, I found myself not only bored through much of this film, but greatly disappointed with how it took what could've been an interesting premise and ostensibly put very little effort into developing it beyond your usual "found footage" fare.  If you want my advice, seek out the Aokigahara episode of "Destination Truth" instead, as you'll get a lot more of the willies watching that than you ever will with this movie!  I say "Lights out!"
on "Nightlight".

4 out of 10 for me.

"Children of the Corn: Genesis" (2011)

I have to confess something.  Ever since the late 80's, I have held a deep dislike for all "direct-to-video" sequels, as most of them feel as if they are nothing more than watered down remakes of the originals, or as is most often the case, have very little to do with the films whose name they bear.  Case in point: the "Children of the Corn" franchise.  After "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" (the last of the series to hit theaters), I passed on parts 4 - 8, as well as the 2009 made-for-SyFy remake.

A few years back though, I happened upon a set of all the "Children of the Corn" films on DVD in the $5 bin at Walmart and thought, "Eh, what the hell?"  Figuring someday I might actually sit down and finally watch them, I went ahead and bought the set.  Notice how I said, "a few years back"?  Well, it's taken that long to finally muster up the courage and/or willpower to sit through these (and, I might add, the "Hellraiser" direct-to-video sequels as well, also put out by Dimension, that's been sitting on my shelf next to it's sister series, unopened all this time and collecting dust too).  Parts 4-7 all felt very bland in their execution with their wayward plots, consisting of mostly padded moments to try and make it to the 80 minute feature mark.  I can guarantee that in another five years or so, all of them will be like a vague memory and I'll be lucky to be able to differentiate one from the other.

Which brings me to part 8, the last and most recent of the series, that drops the roman numeral and simply goes by the subtitle, "Genesis".  The only problem is, this is in no way a "prequel" as the title might suggest, but then again, none of the "Corn" sequels seem to follow any kind of continuity or canonized storyline stemming from the first movie.  The basic ingredients to a "Corn" film are simply corn, kids, a possible sickle and maybe the entity known as "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".  That's it.

"Genesis" starts off with yet another couple, Allie (Kelen Coleman) and Tim (Tim Rock) stranded on a remote country highway in what obviously is southern California, but I believe is supposed to be Nebraska.  They decide to see if they can find someone willing to let them use their phone, and happen upon an isolated farmhouse, owned by a man simply called "Preacher" (played by the wild-eyed Billy Drago) and his Russian mail order bride, Helen (Barbara Nedeljakova).  It's apparent Preacher wants nothing to do with this couple on his doorstep...that is until he finds out Allie is pregnant.

Once inside, Preacher tells Allie & Tim they are welcome to stay until morning (when they can get a lift into town to the mechanic's), but warns them not to go places they "ain't invited".  So naturally what's the first thing Allie does?  She wanders off to the barn at night where she hears strange noises and sees what she believes to be a child locked away, then rushes back to tell Tim they need to leave.  Only as they try to leave, an invisible force prevents them from leaving the house, throwing them to the ground.  Is this force being manifested by Preacher, or is it "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"?  Is the boy locked up in the barn Helen's son or "He Who Walks behind the Rows"?  Is Allie's unborn baby connected to all this or is it "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"?  Who knows?  Maybe "He Walks Behind the Rows" knows because I sure couldn't make heads or tails of this muddled mess of a script.

This film to me completely exemplifies everything that is wrong with most direct-to-video sequels.  It tries to throw a connection out to the original film with an opening scene set in the town of Gatlin (which was where the original film and Stephen King's short story took place), but as is usually the case, it has no real relevance to the overall film itself.  The rest of the film could've been a completely original horror film having nothing to do with "Children of the Corn" (and knowing Dimension, it probably was an original script they bought which they doctored up to shoehorn it into the franchise, as they did so often on the "Hellraiser" sequels), and would've been better for it.

If I have any thing positive to say about the film, I'll note that watching Billy Drago be Billy Drago is always fun no matter what the film is.  Here though, he seems much more subdued than his normal frantic self.  Whether it was an attempt to approach this character a little differently or just purely out of boredom with being in these kinds of films, the overall result is pretty effective.  He manages to come off very creepy, especially with those piercing eyes of his, which was enough to keep me guessing as to what his true intentions were?  Once it's revealed though, it elicited a big yawn from me.

Overall, it's an obvious attempt at trying to cash in just one more time on the Stephen King name.  It's amazing to me that his simple 10 page short story could've spawned 9 films (with more to come I'm sure), all of which have about ten pages worth of screenplay material and the rest is always pure padding (including, oddly enough, borrowed action scenes from "Bad Boys II", as was the case with this one).  Let's hope there's a drought of "Corn" films for a while, as after sitting through a marathon of 8 of these, I've had all I can take of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"!

3 out of 10 for me

* One observation I made was that "Children of the Corn: Genesis" came out on DVD by Dimension at the same time they released "Hellraiser: Revelations", and oddly enough they chose to subtitle both of these films with the first & last books of the Bible.  Is that a coincidence (as neither subtitle has anything to do with either film) or was someone in marketing at Dimension thumbing through the Bible for subtitles?

"The Shrine" (2010)

For every self professed horror fan who rants on & on about how there are no more original horror films being made today, that everything is just remakes & sequels, I have to roll my eyes.  Just last year, I could name about a dozen or so truly great original horror films…but sadly none of them ever hit theaters here in North America (or at least not a wide release anyway).  If your only diet of horror films is what is playing at your local Cineplex, then you are seriously missing out on a whole world of fantastic original horror films made by independent filmmakers.

One such original film that has seemingly slipped through the cracks is the Canadian horror film, “The Shrine” (2010), directed by Jon Knautz.  Now, one could argue the film borrows liberally from other such horror classics, such as “Black Sunday” (the Mario Bava version with Barbara Steele, not the “Goodyear blimp out of control” 1977 film with Robert Shaw), “The Fog” and…well, I don’t want to mention the third film it reminded me of for fear of spoiling any surprises. I would counter that by pointing out that ALL horror is derived from previous sources in some way, shape or form, and “The Shrine” is no different.  At the same time it’s certainly better than 90% of the bland offerings seen in theaters these days, with it’s unique take on the whole Satanic Cult sub-genre that really turns it all on its head in a way I didn’t see coming.

“The Shrine” follows a female reporter named Carmen (played by Cindy Sampson) who goes behind her editor’s back to chase a story about an American hiker who has disappeared without a trace somewhere within Poland.  Using the hiker’s journal, Carmen recruits her meek intern assistant, Sara (Meghan Heffern) and her reluctant photographer boyfriend, Marcus (Aaron Ashmore) to accompany her to a remote village in Poland where the hiker was last seen.  Upon arriving, the trio is confronted by a group of angry Polish villagers, who clearly do not want any outsiders snooping around, that threaten them with violence if they don’t leave immediately.  Thinking she’s on to a truly big story and ignoring the advice of Aaron who is insistent they pack up & go, Carmen sneaks back to the outskirts of the village, where she enters a mysterious mist.

Truthfully, that’s as far as I want to go, as I certainly don’t want to spoil anything for anyone who has not yet seen this.  Let’s just say that at the point where I felt I had figured it all out, the rug got yanked out from under me.  Usually I can smell a plot twist in a horror film coming a mile away, but this one took me aback and in turn sent the film into a whole other direction that I truly enjoyed.  The climax builds into an insane bloodbath and I found myself second guessing the character’s motivations throughout, as all allegiances are put to the test in a very fluid way. 

Overall, the film possesses a very clever screenplay that wants to toy with popular horror conventions and in turn, gave me a memorable horror experience that I’ll no doubt be returning to in the future on multiple occasions.  If there are any drawbacks I suppose it would be that the film’s performances didn’t come off as anything more than adequate.  That’s not to say they were in any way subpar, as the actors aren’t given much to do other than react once the shit hits the fan.  By that point, the film doesn’t stop to slow down for any character moments, which I totally get why, but at the same time I would’ve liked to have had maybe a little more time with these characters (in the first act perhaps) to make me care all the more.  That aside though, “The Shrine” is a certainly one original horror film that is worth paying your respects to!

8 out of 10 for me.

"Smiley" (2012)

I don’t know if it’s too soon to call this a new sub-genre yet, but there have been quite a few horror films within the last few years aimed at the You Tube generation which deal with the darker side of the internet.  Some of them (like “The Den” or “Unfriended”) are told almost entirely from chat screens, while others use elements from pre-existing sub-genres to play with these same ideas.  “Smiley” (2012) for example, uses the slasher formula to tell a story about how urban legends spread on the internet, with the intent of exploring the notion of whether absolute evil can manifest itself in the darkest corners of the world wide web.  An interesting concept for sure, but does it work?

The film centers on a meek & awkward college freshman, Ashley (played by the adorable Caitlin Gerard), who has just arrived on campus, where she meets her new roommate, “Proxy” (played by Melanie Papalia, who would go on to play the lead in another internet horror film, “The Den”, a year later).  Right out of the gates, Proxy immediately gets Ashley stoned (her first time ever), then drags her to a party where she meets Zane (Andrew James Allen), a young man who is doing a study on why people believe in the strange and bizarre (hmmm).  While at the party, Ashley learns all about an internet boogeyman who goes by the name, “Smiley” (because of his round fleshy appearance that features both his eyes and mouth sewed shut, thus resembling a demented looking “smiley” face – a truly disturbing visage for sure) that appears on Chat Roulette whenever he is summoned, so as to kill the random stranger on screen at the behest of the person who types the phrase, “I did it for lulz” three times (ala “Candyman”).

Later that night, Ashley & Proxy decide to do a little experiment themselves to see if the legend of “Smiley” is true, by going onto a chat site and keying in the proper phrase on the first guy they see masturbating on cam (which got me to thinking, it’s a shame Smiley isn’t real, as he might be a great deterrent for all these guys flashing their junk to underage girls on these sites!).  Sure enough, Smiley pops up behind the pud puller and stabs him, but before the girls can log off, Smiley stares into the cam and gets a good look at them.  At this point, Ashley becomes a complete mess and is convinced Smiley will be after them next.

Now, this is where the film suddenly takes a sharp turn by veering away from slasher movie territory and becoming more of a psychological horror film.  We’re left to ponder whether  poor is Ashley really seeing Smiley following her home at night, or if is she starting to lose it and moving herself closer to a complete nervous breakdown over it all? 

Enter Professor Clayton (played by Roger Bart).  When Ashley is not having nightmares (or suffering from really bad jump scares, much like the audience, because the film doesn’t have much scary goodness to offer in the second act), we see her attending a class in “ethics & reason”.  Oddly enough, for me these classroom scenes were my favorite moments of the film, mostly because Bart is the most interesting actor in the whole film, but also because I quite enjoyed these little lectures on the origin of evil and whether it could be somehow infused into technology.  However, the problem with these scenes to me is that they don’t really line up with what is going on, and feel like a half assed attempt at making the film sound like it’s saying more than it really is.  Not only that, but there are blatant lines of exposition dropped by Prof. Clayton that telegraph exactly how this films is going to end, so much so that I was able to predict the entire third act, right up to the start of the end credits in fact.

Because I was able to determine the films course of action so easily, I couldn’t understand why Ashley wasn’t able to see what was dangling right in front of her face?  As a result, I started growing annoyed with her ditziness and found that by the end of the film, I could’ve cared less about her plight (which I attribute to the writing, and not Gerard’s performance, as she does the best with what’s she given).  The ending happens without any surprises, and I’m left feeling a sense of disappointment in a film that I thought showed a lot of promise in its premise.  Sadly, no “smiles’ were to be found on my face as the credits rolled.

5 out of 10 for me.