Shelby Oaks

I've been following Chris Stuckmann on YouTube ever since I saw his explanation video of 'Enemy' over ten years ago. I haven't watched his channel in a few years since he decided to change things up, but I've followed the progress of 'Shelby Oaks' since its inception back in 2021. I finally got to see it today and it was - quite a letdown, I'm sad to say.

Back in 2014 Stuckmann did a video titled 'The Problem with Horror Movies Today' and a large segment of that video was explaining why jump scares are so terrible and such a cheap gimmick. A direct quote from that video was, "The jump scare is the cheapest tactic used in horror films today." I tend to agree. So I had really hoped that Stuckmann would make a point of avoiding them all together in his debut film. Sadly, he did not. There aren't too many of them but they are in there and they are not well done. He even uses one during a piece of found footage, which is a major no-no.

The film is terribly clunky. It starts as a mockumentary and then suddenly it's not. The story has no focus and darts all over the place with terrible (CGI? - they looked CGI at least) dogs guiding the film. And the ending sequence was bizarre and didn't work for me at all. It felt like he was trying to cram ten films into one.

It's low budget so the acting is very dodgy in a lot of cases. Thankfully the lead actress Camille Sullivan is decent. She does her best to carry the film and keep it watchable.

This one didn't work though. It's never scary or interesting. The mystery doesn't captivate and there are a lot of choices that are quite cringe inducing. It's a debut film so there's plenty of time for him to learn and grow is the good news. 3/10.

Valiant effort.

I wasn't familiar with The Paranoid Paranormal YouTube show until waiting in line for the screening, but the IYKYK vibe I'd then hoped for didn't even pay off (or maybe it did? Some true fan please tell me it did.)

It really seemed to sputter and burn out in the third act where what was intriguingly setup prior to felt crudely resolved like quickly gathered horror-trope loose ends of recent memory.

Did they hold off on some unused footage reserved for a hopeful sequel? Or simply telling Chris that selling his soul now will get him something better in the future?

Whatever it is, I respect how he got this made and the commitment to a longer form creative project like this - and I'm still intrigued to see what he does next.

High hopes dashes away midway through film. It started off with a uniquely fresh approach to telling the story, but fell into the cliche of brave person falling in the trappings of a common horror movie. There's a lot of scenes that made no sense that the only conclusion is exactly how most horror films with a supernatural villain ends. The protagonist's conviction after 12 years has finally waned when presented a means to her true desire - succumbs to temptation. A solid 7 for the unique, ala dateline NBC news segment style film intro. 7 for the good actors. An awful 1 score for the predictable ending which diluted the effectiveness of the scare score of 3. See it if you dare sit through another frustratingly cliche horror film.

A film made to be watched at home. Many dark moments that allowed for the theater guide lighting to wash out the screen. Slow start that take found footage and then turns into a mystery movie only to end with a boring twist and unsatisfying ending. The only real thing that could save this movie is if the home video sleuths are able to frame by frame hidden clues throughout the film otherwise, don't waste your time. C horror film.

Dark forest? Check.

Baby in danger? Check.

News footage? Check. VHS analog quality footage? Check.

Abandoned building? Attic scene? Check. Check.

Sidenote: what is with all these modern movies that have the "cable TV" "American Horror Story/Walking Dead"-esque title sequences? So offputting and unnecessary.