Film Review: “Faceless After Dark”

Starring: Jenna Kanell, Danny Kang and Danielle Lyn
Directed by: Raymond Wood
Rated: NR
Running Time: 83 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Has horror even been this meta? “Bodies Bodies Bodies,” “X,” “One Cut of the Dead,” and “Totally Killer” are just a few of the meta horror movies from the past couple of years that I can think of off the top of my head. It’s been an interesting subgenre for decades, but it seems to have crescendoed recently. However, have we ever had an actor or actress in a newly beloved horror film take on their own success through the meta medium? After several film festivals, “Terrifier” began making the rounds in 2018. Since then, and thanks to the highly successful sequel, “Terrifier 2,” Art the Clown is slowly becoming a household slasher name and Jenna Kanell’s career has taken off. I’ve seen Kanell once a year in one film or another and she has this dangerous, yet fun magnetism about her. This is basically what “Faceless After Dark” is.

Bowie (Jenna Kanell) is famous after starring in a film where she dukes it out with a sociopathic killer clown. It leads to more horror film offers, conventions on weekends and an internet buzz that seems inescapable. But it isn’t the boost to her career she was expecting. She doesn’t like the convention circuit, she doesn’t like being typecast as the final girl, she doesn’t like the lack of pay, she doesn’t like that her creative ideas and aspirations are ignored and she definitely doesn’t like the daily parade of older, uglier, fatter and hideous men sliding into her DMs. This frustration builds and builds until one night, a person imitating the sociopathic killer clown from Bowie’s famous film enters her home during another frustrating night of writer’s block. However, she may have just found her inspiration.

“Faceless After Dark ” blurs the lines so much between Kanell/Bowie, we’re unsure about quite a lot as the film progresses. We enjoy watching Bowie getting vengeance, but how much of this is entrenched in Kanell’s beliefs and existence within the artist and audience dynamic? There aren’t too many clues during Bowie’s blood rage to mine out a direct interpretation of Kanell’s attitudes. She might actually be a true sociopath if that was the case, but the film does have a very cathartic nature to it. We may not understand the strife on screen, but we understand how social media, the constant negativity it pours into our lives, and the contemporary world around us becomes more and more of a burden the more we allow our lives to bleed into social media. That’s when the mess of the world feels more tangible than other issues in our life that we can actually handle and change. It’s a human breaking point of needing to lash out when the world feels like it’s lashing you daily.

There’s a lot of pondering going on behind Kanell’s eyes, whether it’s while she checks her phone, edits video footage or stares with pure determination into the camera during a strobe light montage of violent imagery. On top of Kanell’s mysteriousness, “Faceless After Dark” makes a few interesting remarks about the slasher genre. The title slasher, whether it be Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees or even Art the Clown, always seems to be given the true love and adoration while the love and adoration for final girls like Bowie/Kanell may be at times genuine, but sometimes sexually motivated and overtly creepy. It’s also interesting that many slashers simply kill to kill, sometimes indiscriminately or, as it was stated for years, because they had sex. We still love those male slashes for it. In “Faceless After Dark,” it’s almost like Bowie needs an emotional excuse instead of indiscriminate slashing. Without that linchpin, we risk not liking her. Odd, isn’t it?

“Faceless After Dark” is a suitable slasher, but is way better as the meta slasher it angles to be. If you don’t know Kanell and the “Terrifier” franchise, I doubt you’d understand a lot of the film and I also doubt you’d be interested in this film in the first place.  Led by Kanell, who may deserve her own slasher series after this, “Faceless After Dark” is a vicious spectacle that will potentially have genre fans questioning their own fandom and what the film ultimately represents.

Film Review: “Laced”

Starring: Dana Mackin, Hermione Lynch and Zach Tinker
Directed by: Kyle Butenhoff
Rated: NR
Running Time: 98 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

Molly (Dana Mackin) and Charlie (Kyle Butenhoff) appear to be having an intimate evening together. They share dinner in a remote cabin, surrounded by a record-breaking blizzard, and appear to have planned the whole thing. However, there’s no time for small talk, deep talk, cozying up by a roaring fire or even finishing the meal. That’s because Molly has poisoned Charlie.

I don’t want to say much more because “Laced” works purely on its performances and reveals. Sure, it doesn’t take us long to realize something is amiss and that Molly has intentionally poisoned Charlie. And sure, the initial exposition comes hot and heavy, or in the case of watching the trailer, almost too spoilery. We know things will continue to be complex and complicated, that’s why Molly has unexpected dinner guests that make “Laced” a rather effective winter thriller.

It’s an indie film so I can forgive the lack of style that could have made it more claustrophobic and made effective use of the blizzard. Seriously, I sometimes forgot a raging snowstorm was outside because of how much time is spent indoors in this singular setting without a peep. The howling wind seems like an afterthought as characters stab each other with icy dialogue. All of that being said, Mackin, Hermoine Lynch and Zach Tinker provide enough fireworks in their performances. Butenhoof, not so much, but I can’t fault an actor who dies about five minutes in.

However, Butenhoff serves as writer and director, showing a Hitchcockian knack for making the most of a simplistic story. In other hands, “Laced” would have just been another predictable murder film, but Butenhoff is creative with making us second guess the narrative, whether it’s from Molly’s perspective or the explanations of her unexpected dinner guests. While I certainly felt the film lacked that winter bite, “Laced” has enough creativity to entertain you for 90 minutes and has the potential to chill you to the bone.

Film Review: Loop Track

Starring: Thomas Sainsbury, Hayden J. Weal and Tawanda Manyimo
Directed by: Thomas Sainsbury
Rated: NR
Running Time: 96 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

At the opening of “Loop Track,” Ian (Thomas Sainsbury) is ignoring call after call as he parks his car at the edge of a New Zealand wilderness. Sweat percolates his head even though it doesn’t appear to be hot outside. Once he sets out on a hike, to who knows where, he avoids hikers as best as he can. It’s obvious that something is going on with Ian, but we don’t know what it is. Is he outrunning somebody? Is he worried about running into someone he knows? Why is he seemingly escaping into the woods for a hike?

The potential answers are sidelined when Ian runs into the overly talkative Nicky (Hayden J. Weal). Instead of revealing what bugs him with the Nicky, who overshares about everything, Ian doubles down on the awkwardness and sweating. Stuck together, the duo stops at a hiking trail cabin for the night, encountering a honeymooning couple, Monica (Kate Simmonds) and Austin (Twaanda Manyimo). Just like the viewer, they realize something is off with Ian, but no one can figure out what it is. Oddly enough, they have a lot of patience for his panicky shenanigans.

“Loop Track” is a near masterclass in suspense, making you wonder if Ian is experiencing stress-induced delusions, if he’s legitimately seeing something distant and foreboding in the surrounding woods, or if he’s the true terror. I give major props to Sainsbury, who also wrote and directed the film. So much of the film is carried through his embarrassingly shy, self-loathing cringe character. Sainsbury also writes a perfect counter balance to Ian through Nicky, an unnaturally cheery, comic relief who seems more focused on getting laid by every female he encounters, rather than Ian’s growing paranoia. The newlyweds play as a middle ground between the two, reacting with nuance and grounded reality to Nicky’s horniness and Ian’s fears.

The payoff in the film is unpredictable, truly. Is it a good payoff though? It’s something I’ve been struggling with. My emotions in the final act ranged from genuine surprise to disappointment. That being said, the movie is crafted in such a way, even if the payoff doesn’t work for you, it has it’s claws in you and you can’t turn away. While Sainsbury may be known more for his comedic chops and talents, he has a keen sixth sense for horror. If “Loop Track” is a sign of Sainsbury’s prowess for horror, I can’t wait to see what he has in store next.

Film Review: “Herd”

Starring: Ellen Adair, Mitzi Akaha and Jeremy Holm
Directed by: Steven Pierce
Rated: NR
Running Time: 97 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 1.5 out of 5 Stars

Despite the saturation of the zombie genre over the past few decades, I still have a soft spot for it. Films like “The Sadness” and “Wyrmwood: Apocalypse” show there’s plenty of fun ideas to still explore within the genre. Then other films seem to simply retread tired clichés, like how humans are worse than zombies or how we’ll fight each other before we fight zombies. Unfortunately, despite an interesting beginning, I’d put “Herd” in the latter category.

Jamie (Ellen Adaiar) and Alex (Mitzi Akaha) are going on a canoe camping trip to repair their breaking relationship. Things get tense during the trip and Alex injures her leg, trapping the duo near Jamie’s hometown, filled with bad memories, two warring factions, and a potentially abusive parent. On top of that, the zombie apocalypse has apparently broken out. While the calamity could provide some fresh meat to the genre, “Herd” goes a lot of predictable routes before it’s finale.

The obvious social commentary in “Herd” is ones we’ve seen before like the breakdown of civilization through overt classism and distrust of one another. “Herd” tries to bring a bit more to the table by offering up the LGBTQ+ relationship of Jamie and Alex. The duo worries about whether or not they’ll be accepted by what few people are left, or as the film title explicitly implies, the herd. It doesn’t necessarily work since the armed men running the show seem more afraid of every cough and sniffle they hear, but it’s clearly a commentary on how small-town acceptance only extends to straight white people.

Other than the commentary, the middle of the film tries to be a character study, focusing on the characters fears and concerns. It would have worked better if the humans and zombies were menacing. Like I said, the men with guns seem more concerned about the other men with guns and every time they hear someone clear their throat. The zombies are slow moving and are covered in boils, yet sometimes seem unconcerned with actually chomping into someone’s flesh. Instead they growl, claw and make gurgling scream sounds.

I’m willing to forgive bad zombie films as long as I’m entertained, but nothing about the “Herd” kept me engaged. The only thing that kept me going was the hope that the ending would somehow pull the rug out from under me or tie everything together in a way that would make my jaw drop. It didn’t, but I’ll give credit for the unpredictable nature of it. There’s a lot of skill, craft and effort in “Herd,” but all of that was bogged down by an uninspired script that made the 97-minute runtime feel like a zombie crawl.

Film Review: “8 Found Dead”

Starring: Aly Trasher, Alisha Soper and William Gabriel Grier
Directed by: Travis Greene
Rated: R
Running Time: 82 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 2.5 out of 5 stars

How do you begin to describe a movie that basically gives itself away in the title? Here’s the gist: A desert AirBnB will be the site of a get together between young Millennial/Zoomer couples Carrie (Aly Trasher) and Ricky (Eddy Acosta), and Sam (Alisha Soper) and Dwayne (William Gabriel Grier). However, since the couples arrive at different times, they’re greeted by the supposed original AirBnB guests, Boomer/Gen-X couple Richard (Tim Simek) and Liz (Rosanne Limeres). We aren’t sure who is murdered or why the murders are happening, but the film will slowly unravel that aspect after the opening moments when we witness the ax murder of AirBnB host, Jessie (Jenny Tran). We also know eight people die, thanks to the title and the framing narrative of two small town cops, who also used to be lovers, investigating the aftermath. If you’re keeping count at home, that’s nine characters. So at least the film doesn’t give away the one person who lives.

While the promotional material is very clear on who the killers are, the why and who lives is what keeps the movie flowing. The nonlinear storytelling is the greatest aspect of this film, especially since we learn more and more about each character in spellbinding fashion. Unfortunately the film never seems to utilize the horror of its AirBnB aspect. A film like “Barbarian” had me so distrusting of the characters and property in the first 30 minutes while “8 Found Dead” seems to just go, “Oops, double booked,” and seemingly reveals the killers in the first 20 minutes. Despite the flaw of not utilizing its AirBnB premise, my biggest issue with the film as a whole is, was it all worth it?

Like I said, we wonder about why the murders are happening? That’s the biggest question of the film for me, and I’m left wondering if there isn’t a subversive commentary on love, relationships and generational views. Richard and Liz are very blunt, sometimes offensive and possibly swingers. Richard and Liz clearly have relationship issues that were dragged into their professional lives as police officers while Carrie and Ricky and Sam and Dwayne have massive communication issues that feel complicated by technology. While there may be a commentary on relationships, you could also chalk up Richard and Liz to being more comfortable with each other and themselves after years together, as well as a shared demented sense of life and love.

While I wasn’t bored, I could see how people would be bored because so much is given away up front. I don’t want to spoil the film in this review because I’m ultimately recommending it, despite my on the fence view and rating. I think it has enough elements to make it a captivating watch, but I also foresee people losing interest during verbal chess matches between the older couple and the younger couples. The film also teases that this isn’t the first tale of murder associated with couples, which leads me back to, why? The why bugs me and that’s ultimately bogging down a film I did enjoy. If “8 Found Dead” has something rich to say, I wish it was as upfront as the title about it.

Film Review: “Mother, May I?”

Starring: Holland Roden, Kyle Gallner and Chris Mulkey
Directed by: Laurence Vannicelli
Rated: NR
Running Time: 99 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 stars

When death occurs, it leaves a scar. Not only the loss of a loved one, but the words that will never be said. The emotions that will now never be conveyed or felt. The questions that will now go on unanswered. I won’t bother looking up who said it because it’s a universal truth, but the only sure thing in life is death. In “Mother, May I?,” death is really the only sure thing.

Emmett’s (Kyle Gallner) mother, who abandoned him, has recently passed. Understandably, he wants to go to her house, get in, get out and move on with his life. Emmett’s fiance, Anya (Holland Roden), is in tow as emotional support, but that support seems a little flawed. At least from my vantage point. In an effort to help alleviate the pain of the experience of being in her house, Anya recommends they take psilocybin mushrooms. I have yet to try this method, but seeing people on mushrooms without having to deal with trauma tells me…I won’t. While tripping, Emmett and Anya decide to play a little roleplaying game where Anya is Emmett’s mother. It’s weird, oddly sexual and freaks Emmett out a bit. However, the troubles continue when he wakes up the next day and Anya is still pretending to be his mother. Or is she?

“Mother, May I?” is the definition of unsettling. As the film progresses, we begin to wonder if something supernatural is happening. Anya, who professes to not know how to swim, begins to swim whilst continuing to “be” Emmett’s mother. She also begins to exhibit ticks that Emmett knows his mother had, but has never told Anya. The emptiness of the house they’re in, compounded by the callousness of Emmett’s mom in flashbacks, allows the film to creep slowly under your skin, wriggling around when tensions come to a boil. When things explode between the two, it’s like a therapy session in hell.

Since most of “Mother, May I?” is filled with our two leads, so much of the film’s emotional weight is carried by Gallner and Roden who do spot-on jobs when their characters are hurt, vengeful, remorseful and horny. Rarely does the film relent, seemingly putting its foot down on the emotional accelerator. At some points you have to wonder who’s attempting to inflict emotional damage and who’s using brutal honesty to progress their own self-reflected feelings forward.

So what exactly is going on with Anya? Is she possessed or is she creating a cruel new form of psychotherapy? Or better yet, what’s going on with Emmett? Is he truly disturbed and upset or is he a unique byproduct of a broken mother-son relationship that would have Sigmund Freud licking his lips? Since the film leaves every question unanswered, the film in of itself is like death. As the credits roll, we’re left wondering what if and why.

 

Panic Fest Film Review: “The Third Saturday in October Part V” and “The Third Saturday in October”

Starring: Kansas Bowling, Darius Willis, Poppy Cunningham, K.J. Baker, Taylor Smith and Lew Temple
Directed by: Jay Burleson
Rated: Unrated
Running Time: 89 and 97 minutes
Dark Sky Films

Our Score: 4 out of 5 stars

Never seen or heard about “The Third Saturday in October: Part V” or the prior four films in the franchise? Don’t worry, no one has. The text crawl at the beginning of “Part V” tells us all we need to know about the franchise. It states that the first film in the series was created as a cash-in on the popularity of “Halloween” in 1978. It became a cult classic, spurring several slasher sequels over the next decade and a half, but the first film has been lost to time. Thankfully for you and I, “Part V” has been found.

Anyone who has read, heard or seen anything about this film knows that the first film is available. But for reasons I’ll explain later, you should watch “Part V” first. The killer of this non-existent, made-up franchise is Jakkariah “Jack” Harding, a scarred killer who appears every third Saturday in October to kill unsuspecting teens and other morons in the fictional town of Hackleberg. Both films basically have Jack murder his way through a group of high, drunk and horny high schoolers, and other random character clichés, gathering together to watch the iconic football game between Alabama-Mobile and the Tennessee A&M Commonwealth. In “Part V,” Jack wears a never before seen clown/child mishmash mask that isn’t scary or menacing. What this film is, is plenty of cheese dripping at the corners of your screen, a budget so low it’d make Lloyd Kaufman tear-up and comedy good enough for the “Scary Movie” franchise (at least the good movies in the franchise).

“Part V” is an homage and parody dropped into a blender with discount guts/gore, horror movie tropes and easily disposable caricatures. “Part V” was allegedly released in the early 90s and it definitely shows in the characters, using vernacular of the time with the style of goth kids from that era. The actors are clearly older than the “teens” they’re playing, adding to the overall goofiness of the film. There are several winks at movies outside the “Halloween” franchise, such as “Misery,” “Friday the 13th,” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The one thing the movie really nails is the odd thematic mix that was “Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers,” the main film being spoofed here. Without making this a laundry list of references, “Part V” is not only pure entertaining fan service, but also a retro throwback to early 90s horror which was ultimately a cash grab that failed to recognize or continue the story of the iconic slashers from the late 70s.

So what about the first film? “The Third Saturday in October” serves as the true beginning of the franchise, but watching “Part V” first gives you a sense of who the killer is while the first tells you the what and why of the killer. I won’t go too much into the first film, but it’s still a comedy-horror. Instead of relying solely on laughs, the film takes a bit of a more serious edge just like most slasher films did in their first franchise creating film. Everyone who’s watched “Nightmare on Elm Street” knows that Freddy Krueger is all menace and no jokes in the first of the franchise. The chuckles and one-liners don’t make an appearance until the third film, “Dream Warriors.” This happened a lot in franchises and 80s horror.

With his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, director Jay Burleson makes the most spot-on representation of two different time periods in horror cinema. He manages to take the best parts of those screenshots into history while ridiculing the parts that have aged about as well as 3D technology in late 80s horror films. He makes his supposedly menacing killer, who giggles behind the mask while maiming and killing, even trashier and goofier than Pinhead in 1992’s “Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth.” Burleson has done his research stylistically and writing wise, making “Part V” walk and talk like every other early 90’s horror that failed to do its horror icon justice. But since we’ve never been acquainted with Jack, we don’t necessarily feel the same way when Pinhead and Freddy focused more on one-liners than kills. With Jack and the cast of dopey teen characters, we relish the intentionally awful concept.

“Part V” is an insane amount of fun if you’ve ever grown up watching slashers or were like some 90s kid and watched one of those God awful 90s slasher films looking to capitalize on the success of its predecessors. I believe that’s the intent of Burleson, who most likely grew up as I did or knew someone who did. Growing up in the 90s, I didn’t have a lot of access to late 70s/early 80s horror content, so a lot of times with horror franchises, I would work backwards. Burleson does this with his franchise as an homage and meta commentary on the whole notion that regardless of when you start a horror franchise, if you vibe with the killer, you will ultimately like it all. It also may be a commentary on horror purists, who believe the sequels are inferior to the original, whereas someone like me watched “New Nightmare” before the original “Nightmare.” So sue me, I like “New Nightmare” better. Would that theory hold true if you watch the first “Third Saturday in October” before “Part V?” That’s another potential piece to this metaphorical puzzle. If you went to the video store back in the day and wanted a horror movie night, you were at the mercy of what’s available. So, maybe all you had upon your return home was the first “Friday the 13th” and “Jason Goes to Hell.”

I’m sure there’s some people rolling their eyes at the prospect of an intentional double feature that has to be watched out of order. That’s a fair point and one that I can’t really fault people on, especially when horror movies often tease a gimmick only to fail at making the gimmick work. Burleson not only makes the gimmick work, but I think it’s safe to say that without the internet or smartphones, he could have easily fooled people into believing this was some kind of diamond plucked from a Blockbuster dumpster. Even then, Burleson understands everything about these eras of horror, from how they were lit, how they were portrayed and the overall tone they were going for. He’s like a horror historian that decided to show his knowledge with his funny bone.

I wouldn’t be taking these two films as seriously if it wasn’t for how spot-on this film is at the decades and genres it’s lampooning. What makes this low budget, poorly acted film such a delight, is that everyone and everything is committed. The little girl who plays the trope of being too smart for her age along with the stereotypical babysitter are delightful along with their gaggle of friends that represent every high school teen stereotype. It’s also fun watching the douchebag jocks in each film get their cruel karma after they dish out some insults to the geeky kids. Because of that, we’re glad to see them meet their end at Jack’s hands. I tried as best I could to stay away from some of my favorite gags in this film (there are a lot) because each passing minute is a chance for Burleson to pay homage to one film, while ridiculing another, and then doing the complete opposite in another scene later on. If Burleson plans on doing the next logical thing, an early 2000s reboot, I’m all-in. Then of course we’ll need the 2020s approach, just make a sequel to the first and ignore all the other sequels. I wanna see what Jack does next and you should definitely see what he does in “Part V” and his origin story.