As with all my reviews, no spoilers. Only discussion on content and production.
It is rare that I watch a movie and come away feeling like it wasn't worth the watch, no matter how small, but this is one of the few that falls in to that boat. I read reviews for movies on IMDB for everything I watch, and nearly every one has at least one "smartallic" commenting about how the acting was horrid, the movie was the worst ever made, and that they want their 90 minutes back. I detest those reviews, as they're typically written by younger watchers who want one thing, and have their expectations set prior to watching. I attempt carrying a blank slate in to a film so that there are no expectations to be shattered, achieved, or exceeded. I watch a lot of independent, low budget flicks, so it helps when there are no preconceived notions.
That said, "Hush Little Baby" feels like a disjointed student film in its presentation. The first nearly 10 minutes has virtually no dialog and is contrived of oddly lighted fx and "creepy" sounding singing - a young girl singing nursery rhymes in a hushed tone (think Nightmare On Elm Street). Yes...nearly ten minutes.
As the movie progresses past the ten minute mark it moves in to the plot line illustrated in the IMDB synopsis. I actually thought it could be a decent watch, clocking in at just over 50 minutes, but was immediately turned off by the opening scenes. Once it hit the dialog it was clear that it would be a tough watch. Here's why:
- the actors are not pros. The actors aren't even amateurs, at least based on their skill. The speaking is wooden and is delivered in monotone, with no inflection, no body language, no anything. I fully understand the direction taken here; the director hoped for an off kilter, creepy, dark movie where the characters contribute to the antithetical wickedness of the story. Sadly, the actors were so bad that this was completely missed.
- waaaaay too many "effects." Again, it is somewhat apparent what the director is going for, but the weird lighting, the digitally added screen fx (e.g. static or wavy lines) add absolutely nothing. Not only do they add nothing but they become cumbersome and annoying, especially with the terrible acting and narration underneath. I enjoy odd fx like this when used sparingly, and for adding to a particular scene, but it's as if the director doesn't know any better, and figures "hey...the more the better."
- the music is awful. Once again, it's as if the director doesn't know any better. A film "score" should complement and add to whatever is onscreen, not detract. There is almost no point in the 50 minutes when there is no sound fx or music playing behind the dialog. And the music is just not good.
- as if you didn't see this coming, the directing is high school level at best. I'll leave it at that, as it would be overly verbose to criticize everything wrong directorially.
- the overall production is poor. I'm used to microbudget films, as not everybody who wants to make movies is funded by studios. I've seen some excellent flicks with budgets of $2500. It doesn't happen every day, but there are a fair number of decent movies made on little to no budget, so lack of money is no excuse. Ultimately it all comes down to a lack of vision and lack of execution. The editing is horrid, the special fx (if you can even call them that) are not special at all, the scenery is nothing more than your buddy's house down the street, the film looks like a home camcorder, the sound is boomy as if it was only picked up by whatever mic was on the camcorder, and there is no evidence of any real post-production. Oh wait...they added all those visual fx and music, so there must have been some post...just nothing worth noting.
Sadly, I actually really liked the script. If you can imagine swapping the family characters for Sid Haig, Sheri Moon Zombie, and Bill Moseley, not only would the acting be there, but it would be a decent little film. The script has some wonkiness to it, but I didn't expect it to be perfect. The last 10 minutes (ie five years later dialog) is especially awkward, but the biggest issue with it is mostly the delivery, not the actual script. Like I said, I rather enjoyed the script, but the execution and direction makes it a nonstarter.
There's really nothing more to add about this, and as of April 2019 this sits at a 2.7 rating. I can't imagine anyone finding enough in the flick to make the average this high. I appreciate when someone makes a film they are passionate about, even when it's not very interesting. This one, however, never even gets of the ground. Every aspect but the script is worthless, in my opinion. Thankfully it was only 50 minutes.
If you watch the movie, give me a thumbs up if you agree or a thumbs down if you disagree. Always curious to see what people think of my opinions.
