theoceaneer

I think we may have found it, folks -- the bottom of the found footage barrel. "Shallow Creek Cult" is what happens when two guys get a camcorder and spend a hundred bucks at Party City for production design. But it's not the cheapness of "Cult" that offends me -- I've seen better done with less -- but the fact that the screenplay violates all of my personal rules of good narrative.

I think the writing is supposed to be humorously self-aware, and that might work in a better movie, but "Cult" is constantly calling out found footage tropes while simultaneously indulging in them. If your characters expound on the stupidity of splitting up to investigate, and then immediately split up to investigate, it seems less like your screenplay is hip and edgy and more like your characters are dumb. The offense is compounded by the ham-fisted way that these conversations are shoehorned into the movie. At one point, the characters are fleeing through the woods, and one of them says "Hold up a minute, shouldn't we talk about...?" And then they talk about some absurd element of the script.

Second, never name-drop better movies in a bad movie. This movie name-drops "Blair Witch" and "Scarface", both of which are vastly superior to this dreck. And unfortunately for this calamity, Blair Witch had a better script -- and it was improvised.

Third -- and this one could possibly be chalked up to budget -- "Cult" is constantly telling rather than showing. A good five minutes of the film (it seems like -- it may have been shorter, but my relative experience of time slowed to a crawl) is given over to READING NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS. And not just the relevant bits ("Man consumed by cannibals!"), but the incredibly boring biographical information from the beginning of the article. Good job, Screenwriter/Director/Production Designer/Lead Actors/Gaffer -- you wrote the whole newspaper article. That is some legit world building, but we don't need to HEAR the whole article.

What's worse, all of the interesting bits are either not shown, or are shown in quick cutaways. We are told there's a body in a tub, but we never actually SEE it. A woman is attacked by cannibals, WE ARE TOLD, but all we get to actually see is some stage blood and a bad K-Mart wig. We are TOLD that the cultists appear to be inhuman -- but we are not actually shown, because that would reveal that the cultists are, in fact, wearing latex masks from the local halloween superstore (to be fair, we do get to see an awful lot of the cultists' hands -- which do appear to be from the local halloween superstore).

The final nail in the coffin for this film is that it lacks any sort of meaningful plot, arc, or resolution. The characters do not learn or change, nothing meaningful is revealed about the menace of the cultists, and we as an audience are completely unmoved by our characters' plight. The film raises plenty of questions -- whose house is this? Who are the cultists? Where did they come from? Why is no one doing anything about it? -- and answers exactly none of them. And this might bother me more, if I cared AT ALL about anyone or anything in this movie. One could create a nearly identical film by recording a couple of high-school kids driving to a "Haunted House" attraction, going through it, and then driving home. Bracket that with some foreboding white text on a black screen, and you have "Shallow Creek Cult".

There is nothing to recommend this film, and I am diminished by having seen it.

I really like found footage movies, so I'll add my usual caveat here: if you do not like found footage movies, this is a pass. Otherwise, soldier on!

"Followed" breaks one of my cardinal rules of writing -- the entire movie hinges on one of the characters being a moron. And not in the "Let's go see what that noise was!" sense, but rather, this character has a long, intricate plan that is completely and utterly stupid. I can't even think of an example outside of an "Airplane" movie of a plan so totally, inexplicably stupid. Perhaps the character was dropped on his head as a child, in which case they should probably have explained that in the film.

Normally, this would be the death knell for a film, but "Followed" redeems itself with three key factors. First and foremost is the actress who plays Rachel, Stefanie Butler. She is GORGEOUS -- not just in a "homina homina" way, but her features and movement are so interesting that you just want to watch her. She also plays her character very close to the vest, and so a big part of watching the movie is puzzling out what is up with her. The screenplay kind of beats you over the head with "clues", so it is a testament to her acting that the viewer is still curious about her.

The second redeeming quality of the film is the interpersonal drama that is layered on top of the "horror stuff". Really, the main "plot" of the film (note the quotation marks) has nothing to do with the scary bits, and everything to do with the protagonist and his completely ordinary plans. Since the real "plot" is dumb, it's good that this interpersonal drama is there to keep the viewer engaged.

The third redeeming quality of "Followed" is the use of incidental security camera footage inter-cut with the narrative footage as a device to build tension. It can occasionally be a little "Where's Waldo", but my nerves were effectively ratcheted up by the quick inter- cutting of parking lot or lobby footage. This footage, layered in with radio and TV broadcasts in the background of scenes, give the scares in "Followed" more oomph than, frankly, they deserve.

So, while the writing is dumb, for a found footage film, this one is fun to watch and has a couple of effective scares. And I can not say enough nice things about Stefanie Butler -- she is really a joy to watch, and her performance is so measured that, even when the film is beating you about the face and neck with "hints", she single-handedly maintains the suspense. And, yes, she is, like, freakishly beautiful.

I enjoy horror anthology films. They tend to be a mixed bag, and this film was no exception. The three shorts included in "Death: A Love Story" are, in order, fine, good, and fine. So, on the whole, "Death" is better than average.

The framing device is, thankfully, brief and to the point. Nic-Nac the clown hosts a midnight movie series, and delivers some Crypt Keeper-esque dad jokes in a decidedly droll manner. This is interspersed with some effective "creepy clown" quick-cuts. Nic-Nac doesn't overstay his welcome, so I'm a fan. I also enjoy his delivery, which was a pleasant break from manic movie clowns.

The first short (I think it was called "Flip") was adequate. It was well shot and the actors were fine, but there was nothing notable about the writing. I think the ending was supposed to be a twist, but it did not land for me. It was, on the whole, adequate but uninteresting. Certainly the least engaging of the three sequences, and I had trouble paying full attention.

The second, and longest, sequence is framed as a documentary following a young filmmaker who is being stalked. This segment was genuinely good -- it was well-shot, the writer establishes a credible arc for the main character, and the three leads (the actor, his girlfriend, and the documentary director) are incredibly charismatic. The interview segments featuring the actor and the director are shot in such a way, and the actors' faces are so interesting, that you just want to watch them. I was genuinely engrossed. This segment also featured a twist, which you will also see coming, but it is not as offensive as in segment 1, as the entire structure of the segment is not hung on it. While not particularly scary, this segment sucked me in with compelling characterizations and genuinely good acting.

My only complaint is that Nic-Nac makes an abrupt appearance in the middle of the segment, which was jarring -- for a moment, I thought "Is the segment over? Did I miss something?" I don't know why the director thought this was necessary, but the film would have been better without it. Maybe Nic-Nac was the director? If so, dude...not cool.

The third segment fails on the writing and acting fronts -- the lead actors are genuinely bad, and the story is so thin as to be non- existent. It is also very poorly shot -- it is "found footage", so it is shot with VHS quality and the lighting is genuinely nauseating. HOWEVER, this segment redeems itself by delivering a.) copious boobs, and b.) some genuinely uncomfortable gross-out effects. Seriously -- the director of this segment went whole-hog to make up for the relative lack of gore in the rest of the film. So, kudos to you, whoever came up with that new and interesting use for a fishhook! This segment does not at all fit the theme or the visual aesthetic of the other two segments but, honestly, who cares? Boobs and gore. I can't complain.

All in all, a perfectly adequate horror anthology. If the middle segment wasn't so strong, I'd say pass, but on the whole, this film is better than at least 80% of the horror films I watch. So, it gets seven stars! This film features adequate writing, good acting, good directing, boobs, and great gore effects -- just not all in one place. Try it out!