31 by 31 Challenge #9: A DARK SONG (2017)

A web of mystery spins in and around this fantastical Irish horror film to produce a beautiful, haunting masterpiece of power, love, the occult, and the bleakest of tragedies. Come on in but remember, you cannot leave until we're done...

A Dark Song (2017)
Released: April 28, 2017
Director: Liam Gavin
Screenplay: Liam Gavin

Tagline: "Not everything can be forgiven"

Cast:
Catherine Walker as Sophia Howard
Steve Oram as Joseph Solomon
Susan Loughnane as Victoria Howard

First Time View?: Yes


A determined young woman and a damaged occultist risk their lives and their souls to perform a dangerous ritual that will grant them each what they most wish for, assuming they can survive the ritual's demanding procedures and sinister consequences. This simple summary does nothing to convey the brilliance and the chilling ennui of the film, so I shall do my best to capture what exactly makes this film one of the best new horror films I've seen this year.

A Dark Song is that rare horror film, indeed that rare film in general, that can live comfortably in either the commercial sector or the arthouse world. It's grounded and attainable yet still experimental and unusual. It's a slow burn, and I'll admit I'm partial to those types of horror movies (love me some Session 9 and some Let's Scare Jessica to Death), but it's so psychologically engaging it feels like a blockbuster thriller. You'll get your stabbing and your gore and your scares, but it all comes packaged with well-crafted visual design, emotional storytelling, and raw performance.

Catherine Walker is brilliant as Sophia, conveying such a profound sense of deep trauma at Sophia's loss of her only child, and the almost pitiable desperation she has to get even the most minute moment of closure. It's very difficult for an actor to portray grief for any sustained period of time on camera, let alone for an entire film, but Walker's portrayal is one that is always believable and nuanced. She's aided by an equally great performance from her co-star Steve Oram, who plays the sleazy occultist Joseph. He's a detestable character, for the most part, and Oram commits wholeheartedly to the unsavory persona of his character while also managing to bring out the light in Joseph and tease the audience at the possibility of redemption for the purported occult expert. 

Aside from a brief scene with Sophia's sister, Sophia and Joseph are the only characters of the film, so a whole hell of a lot depends not only on Walker and Oram's performances but on their chemistry as well. Their relationship must carry the story. Lucky for us viewers, nothing is simple or easy between these two, and the drama and tension are plentiful. In order for Sophia to reach the altered state where she can communicate with the dead, she must partake in a grueling ritual guided by Joseph, involving fasting, water torture, Latin chants, and a myriad of others means of "purification." It's all very BDSM, with Sophia agreeing never to refuse Joseph's instructions and follow his rules and regulations to guarantee the success of the ritual. There's an uncomfortable sequence where Joseph tells Sophia that ritual sex will be involved and we can see Sophia wonder the same thing we are at that moment--is it really part of the magic, or is it all just for Joseph's sick pleasure? Does it even matter? Because a grieving mother will do anything to see her child again. It's fascinating to watch the dynamic shift between these two as the film plays out.

And of course, we're driven forward by the question of how this charade will end. The film is careful to provide just as much cause for doubt as it does belief, so the audience is never sure if the ritual is actually working. Until the ending, that is. It's a very mystical and intriguing finale that at first glance might seem to confirm the veracity of the magic, but on closer inspection, there's many explanations for what Sophia experiences and what she finds at the conclusion of her journey. Either way, it's not at all what she was hoping for...

I've seen A Dark Song compared to a Rembrandt painting and I think this is an excellent and accurate descriptor. It's a very meditative, very Baroque sort of movie, with shades of Hitchcock and Fisher and a little Bergmann, using lots of linear shot progressions to heighten the gothic atmosphere reminiscent of those old Hammer films so many of us watched on TCM during late nights at our grandparents. Everything is calculated and nothing is superfluous in the screenplay, yet the film still retains emotional heft and doesn't come off as cold or technical in the least. It's a hypnotic, rare, and beautiful masterpiece, and I suggest you invoke it at your earliest convenience...


A Dark Song
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #8: FRIDAY THE 13TH PART II (1981)

The legend continues to form--we've added Jason but not the hockey mask--with one of the most interesting sequels in horror history. For a proper deep dive, check out Episode 35 of the podcast over on iTunes and SoundCloud and for all the other bits and parts, read on here...

Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Released: April 30, 1981
Director: Steve Miner
Screenplay: Ron Kurz & Phil Scuderi

Tagline: "The body count continues...."

Cast:
Amy Steel as Ginny Fields
John Furey as Paul Holt
Marta Kober as Sandra Dier
Bill Randolph as Jeff
Stu Charno as Ted
Steve Daskawisz & Warrington Gillette as Jason Voorhees

First Time View?: Not on your life (or Jason's)


Five years after the horrific massacre at Camp Crystal Lake it seems that Jason Voorhees and his demented mother are firmly in the past. Ambitious Paul Holt opens a new camp across the lake from the infamous site, ignoring warnings from the locals to stay away. A group of new sexually-charged counselors show up for training, including child psychology student Ginny Fields all seems well at first. But Jason has been hiding out in the deep depths of the woods for years, waiting and watching. And now he wants revenge.

Director Steve Miner (who would go on to direct Part III and then later jump ship to direct the much beloved Halloween H20) doesn't stray too far from what Sean Cunningham set up in the original Friday the 13th (1980) but he really doesn't have to in order to create a strong sequel that's every bit as intense as the original if not as creative. Part 2 is a curious sequel in that it was one of the first of its kind in the slasher subgenre and sort of wrote the rules for what we could expect for the dozens and dozens of follow-up installments we would get in franchises from Halloween to Hellraiser to Nightmare on Elm Street to Child's Play. 

This is also our official introduction to Jason Voorhees, now legendary and arguably the most popular of all horror movie slashers, possibly horror movie villains in general. It's not quite the Jason we recognize as he is sans hockey mask in his first outing here, but we see that classic Jason ingenuity that fans come to know and love throughout the franchise. Jason is the MacGyver of slashers. He can kill you with just about anything in the room.

And using only one eye, too. 

The film can feel jarring and awkwardly edited at points, but that's due to studio interference rather than artistic choice. Miner and special effects chief Carl Fullerton (who replaced Tom Savini from the first Friday) assumed that they were going to be able to get away with just as much nastiness as the first film did but were completely unaware that the MPAA was cracking down on Paramount to tame things down a notch in the wake of part one. 

All in all, Part 2 is a fun, curious sequel that cleared the path laid down by the original for a juggernaut horror franchise that currently clocks in at twelve installments. For more insight into how Part 2 influenced the slasher subgenre, the paradox of establishing yet breaking the rules of horror, the badassness of Final Girl Ginny Fields (played inimitably by Amy Steel), and the thoughts of my cohost Miss Mel on these and other topics, listen to Episode 35 of the Splatter Chatter podcast, available on SoundCloud and iTunes. Happy trails, campers!

Friday the 13th Part 2

5-Totally Terrifying

4-Crazy Creepy

3-Fairly Frightening

2-Slightly Scary

1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #7: BOYS IN THE TREES (2016)

A coming-of-age story all taking place over one night--Halloween night, to be specific--involving ghosts, werewolves, bullies, creepy forests, life, love, romance, death, and the power of imagination. Interested yet?

Boys in the Trees (2016)
Released: October 20, 2016 (Australia)
Director: Nicholas Verso
Screenplay: Nicholas Verso

Tagline: "Nobody gets us...that's half the fun"

Cast:
Toby Wallace as Corey Matheson
Gulliver McGrath as Jonah
Mitzi Ruhlmann as Romany
Justin Holborow as Jango
Terence Crawford as Mr. Matheson

First Time View?: Aye, mate



Halloween, 1997, last night of high school for Corey, his domineering friend Jango, and their skater gang. Childhood is over and the world of adulthood beckons. But Corey's past has unfinished business. Business that must be resolved tonight. When he encounters Jonah, a former childhood friend now victimized by Jango's cruel and insatiable bullying, Corey takes pity on him and agrees to walk him home for old times sake. The two estranged teenagers find themselves reviewing memories, dreams, and fears with one another in what soon turns into a surreal and dangerous game that will leave them both drastically altered.

Boys in the Trees is a nostalgia-fueled Halloween romp that will speak to the spirit of all true 90's kids, fans of Stranger Things, and lovers of the spookiest time of year, no matter your age. The story unfolds slowly, revealing truths and mysteries to us as we progress. From the beginning, there is a promise of conventional horror thrills that is denied in favor of delivering something decidedly different and unexpected, but it achieves the same effect. Suspense is still generated in surprising and meaningful ways. The final turn loses a bit of the film's careful balance and leaves the ending feeling a bit uncanny but not full-on phony. It's not the most well-calculated move for the story, but it's not a hole in the ship either.

In many ways, Boys in the Trees is a love story. Not romantic love, perhaps (though there are a few subtle hints that present the possibility and sexuality is a running theme), but the deep and sweeping love of first friendship. Corey and Jonah's bygone kindship is something we come to understand was once binding, special, and powerful, something lost to the winds that echoes on this Halloween night, this night of the dead, as all lost things do. We're treated to a few flashback scenes that confirm this and play out an important plot point, but not until late in the film so we really come to understand this early on based solely on the performances of the actors playing Corey and Jonah, both of whom are phenomenal, committed, and real. Toby Wallace, in particular, does an excellent job at communicating a mixture of surprise, guilt, and confusion as Corey discovers how much he still has in common with his old friend and pain at the buried truths that come to light during their time together. 

The film isn't heavy on scares, and the ones that do pop up are more creepy that frightening, but it's all in keeping with the tone and thematic overhaul of the film's message. It's more focused on showcasing the trials and tribulations of growing up set against a Halloween backdrop. Nicholas Verso is a confident and assured filmmaker who conjures up surreal scenes and dreamscape imagery that wavers back and forth between sinister and ethereal, chief among them a memorable Day of the Dead-themed house party. The runtime might be a bit long, and the melancholic metaphors might seem obvious at first but by the time things wrap up and come full circle, the emotional imprint becomes deeply affecting.

Boys in the Trees is reminiscent of The Halloween Tree, a story about souls moving between places on Halloween night when spirits cross into this world with ease and if we are not careful, we may also cross into theirs. The narrative is dark, forcing us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our world and how toxic masculinity so easily traps boys and slowly destroys them, body and soul, before they're even aware of themselves as functioning humans. Verso doesn't let us look away from these hard truths, lingering on looks, songs, and feelings to make his point, but despite the heartbreaking turns in the story, the film ultimately ends on an uplifting note of hope and optimism. In Boys in the Trees, we are called to remind ourselves that no matter how deep our pain may be, we must still remember to dream. To dream very, very big. 


Boys in the Trees
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #6: RAW (2016)

(In)famous even before it was released, Raw (2016) caused moviegoers at last year's Toronto International Film Festival to vomit and flee the scene in disgust, shock, and/or fear of passing out. Now that's quite a reputation to live up to. Few horror films have ever reached this strange pinnacle of terror and revulsion wherein gross physical reactions are produced, and the ones that have are notorious for doing so--think The Exorcist (1973), Cannibal Holocaust (1980), and The Green Inferno (2013). Raw certainly pushes its viewers over the edge, but is there enough to situate it among the ranks of these notorious giants? Read on and see...

Raw (2016)
Released: March 10, 2017 (U.S.)
Director: Julia Ducournau
Screenplay: Julia Ducournau

Tagline: "What are you hungry for?"

Cast:
Garance Marillier as Justine
Ella Rumpf as Alexia
Rabah Nait Oufella as Adrien
Laurent Lucas as Father
Joana Preiss as Mother

First Time View?: You bet



Justine hails from a family from vegetarian veterinarians (sounds like a hidden track from The Music Man), and enters her first year of vet school where her older sister studies ready to live up to the family legacy. Hazing for the newbies begins right away and Justine is forced to eat raw meat for the first time in her life. Afterward, unexpected consequences begin to arise as Justine's true self begins to emerge. 

I'll say this right off the bat: despite the questionable aura surrounding Raw due its reception in the festival circuit, this movie is much more than just a vehicle for shock and depravity. There's lost of preconceptions surrounding the film because of the unintentional reports that followed it at Cannes and TIFF, and the only way to distinguish fact from fiction is to see it for yourself. After reading this review, of course.

Raw certainly uses body horror and extreme images in the style of French New Extremity horror films like Inside (2007), Irreversible (2002), Martyrs (2008), and Frontier(s) (2007), and it can be nauseating at times, but as in those films before it, context is everything. Raw is coming-of-age drama wrapped in horror and so the gore involved is not meant to be cartoonish or excessive, but instead is a tool to communicate each step of intensification in the story as Justine progresses down a path that is both nightmarish and grotesque. The New French Extremity movement was said to have petered out a decade ago, but I think that Raw might be a herald of renaissance for the style. 

Justine's story is a quest of self-identity similar to many of our own, yet vastly different in the outcome (I hope). In entering vet school at only sixteen, Justine is balancing between unencumbered freedom and tyrannical repression under her parents, who told her how to dress, how to behave, and even what to eat. At school, the sheltered vegetarian is exposed to all sorts of wonders and temptations she didn't know existed. Sex, drugs, parties, boys, meat. We get the sense that Justine wants to explore these things responsibly, but the intense hazing and lack of self-control and self-discipline from having been raised in such a dominating environment spells disaster for cautious curiosity.

Sibling rivalry with older sister Alex doesn't help matters, either. The relationship between the two women is central to both the plot and the emotional resonance of the film. As an older student in the same program, Alex partakes in Justine's hazing, symbolizing a far larger struggle between the sisters for parental affection, scholarly praise, and the burning desire to have a friend in one another that becomes complicated by their abilities, status at school, and reputation to their mother and father. It's a very real depiction of being and having a sibling, and all that entails. Nothing is two-dimensional between the women. They are allies but also competitors, confidantes yet tormentors, each capable of outshining the other but each trapped in the shadow of the other as well. 

As for the gore, it's aesthetically essential and even philosophical at times, but it is in no way political. The line between human and animal is blurred, crossed, and then obliterated, but it doesn't come off as preachy. There's no "vegetarian agenda." In fact, the presentation is at times so cold it feels clinical, though is likely intentional given the setting of the film at a vet school and the atmosphere induced by the stark lightning, bare cement walls, and void-like use of shadow and space. The film encourages us to explore consciousness, morality, and power through the dialogue and visual representation of animals in the film. 

The ending is powerful, and almost employs its own three-act structure to guide us towards the final minute, which has caused division and debate among the film's fans. The film lingers on a question of what one does with the power of self-realization. In this case, every answer is terrifying. I applaud director Julia Ducournau and wish her a long and successful career (she's only 33) for crafting such an energizing yet violently sad piece of film. Not to mention casting it to perfection with Garance Marillier and Ella Rompf, who deliver spectacular, enveloping performances that are committed and authentic from start to finish.

Raw is brutal and extreme, yes, but it is also full of compelling and harrowing subtext and depth. There's all sorts of complex themes and messages to pick out here--consumption as sexual awakening is one I didn't have time or space to explore but is apparent and intriguing--but it's also an engrossing and wild ride. If you have the stomach for it, that is...


Raw
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #5: SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999)

Richly designed. Pervasive in atmosphere. Whimsical at turns and unrelenting at others, Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow has become a Halloween staple since its debut, and with good reason. It's a low-scare but high-gore horror film the likes of which could only be produced by the strange love affair between creator and star that's gone a little tepid over the years but here is still quite potent.

Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Released: November 19, 1999
Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Andrew Kevin Walker; based on the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving

Tagline: "Heads Will Roll"

Cast:
Johnny Depp as Ichabod Crane
Christina Ricci as Katrina Van Tassel
Miranda Richardson as Lady Van Tassel
Michael Gambon as Baltus Van Tassel
Casper Van Dien as Brom Van Brunt
Christopher Walken as The Headless Horseman

First Time View?: More like tenth-time view

New York City constable Ichabod Crane is sent to the small hamlet of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of mysterious deaths involving beheadings. The logical Crane searches for a human perpetrator, naturally, but is confounded when the locals insist that the culprit is none other than the ghost of the legendary Headless Horseman. A contemporary spin on the classic colonial tale, Burton's take on the story involves witchcraft, superstition, myth, history, and science all in one delicious cocktail.

This Gothic take on the well-known story stays true to the bones of the original while adding wit, life, charm, and that particular Burtonesque touch that makes his films so signature and standout. Together with his longtime muse and partner-in-weird Johnny Depp the two craft a refreshing take on old lore. Ichabod Crane is less flashy than some of Depp's other roles under Burton (or Disney, for that matter), but no less compelling. Depp plays off a deft balance between ironic squeamishness and overblown bravado in the character. His charisma brings lightness to the darkness of the narrative, themes, and tone of the film, which is spot-on October glee. 

Dank woods and dead leaves flank the period-appropriate set that's heightened by stylization but does not distract or displace the viewer. A never-ending mist hangs over everything and you can almost feel the cold seep from your screen as you watch. Color is brought out in eerie yet subtle magnitude--rich blood reds, stark chalk whites--contrasting the lingering gray and producing an almost mesmerizing effect. The costumes and props all evoke the tone and the era as well, making this one of the most beautifully visualized horror films you'll ever find.

"Off with their heads! Wait, that's the other one..."

Depp is perfect in the role and carries us through the plot breathlessly, but he's also aided by a spectacular cast including Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough (who came out of retirement to play the role of the notary), Richard Griffiths, Casper Van Dien, Jeffrey Jones, and Christopher Walker as the Hessian (later Headless) Horseman. PLUS a cameo from the legendary Christopher Lee.

The liberties taken in the story are all justified ones for the most. A few times the story is in danger of becoming too convoluted, but there's always enough time for plot points to breathe before the audience has to take the next sharp turn in the narrative. The backstories fashioned for both the Horseman and Ichabod are interesting and add depth. The spurts of violence and gore mingle well with the blustery, ghostly parts of the tale. 

Professional, high-powered performances, supremely rendered sets, shots, and landscapes, and a near-perfect narrative balance between dark and comic make Sleepy Hollow a wicked, delightful, and enveloping film. There's nothing like a New England October. Or a NEw England ghost story, and you can find both in spades with this film, filled with all sorts of newly imagined twists and turns. So have some fun, go for a ride. Just be careful not to lose your head.


Sleepy Hollow
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #4: WRONG TURN (2003)

Inbreeding. Deformed mutants. Cannibalism. Victims making the worst possible decision in any given scenario. That's right, it's time to take a bite out of Wrong Turn if you've got the stomach for it...

Wrong Turn (2003)
Released: May 30, 2003
Director: Rob Schmidt
Screenplay: Alan B. McElroy

Tagline: "It's the last one you'll ever take"

Cast:
Desmond Harrington as Chris Flynn
Eliza Dushku as Jessie Burlingame
Emmanuelle Chriqui as Carly
Julian Richings as Three Finger
Garry Robbins as Saw Tooth
Ted Clark as One Eye

First Time View?: If only

Brooding hero Chris is attempting to get home as fast as he can, winding away down the highways of West Virginia. When traffic screeches to a halt, he takes a detour through a mountain pass and ends up crashing into some fellow youths who popped a flat tire on their way to go camping and partake in assorted debaucheries. Now they're one big lost happy family and oh right, they're being hunted by three cannibals that have been warped physically and mentally by generations of inbreeding. 

The Wrong Turn series is a curious fixture in the world of horror. When it first came out it gained a reputation for being sick and slick, but if you compare it to other major studio horror releases from, say, 2000-2005, it's actually not quite up to par. This first entry feels very indie, in fact, though there are some decent gross-out scenes when the group stumbles upon the mountain men's homestead and finds out what's cooking. The makeup for the cannibals is definitely big budget too, and probably the movie's strongest feature. But the rest comes off very low-budget. 

That's not a bad thing by any means, but when you're production value doesn't match the very clearly studio mandated level of storytelling, it's somewhat jarring. Typically independent horror films offer something new or fresh to the genre. This is either because a studio won't take the risk of telling a darker, more complicated, or confusing story, or because budget and time constraints force independent filmmakers to get extra creative in how to tell their tale. But there's nothing new about the plot, characters, or setting of Wrong Turn. Teenagers get lost. Teenagers get hacked. Teenagers fight back. Setup to repeat in sequels ad nauseam. It's a mix of The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Deliverance (1972), and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1973) resulting in a somewhat bland milkshake. 

And a vanilla one, at that...

But a milkshake is still a milkshake, after all, and there are good points to bring up here. There are some great camera angles and shots that work perfectly for a backwoods horror film, the special effects are effective and fairly seamless, and the actors do a solid job with parts that are neither particularly challenging or interesting. The shortened 84-minute runtime also ensures that not a single frame is wasted. This is impressive given that the film actually takes its time in setting up the atmosphere before unleashing the cannibals on both the characters and the audience. They're often shielded from view or played in shadow until the most climactic moments, heightening the dread and the shock value when we finally get a glimpse of their monstrous faces.

Overall, Wrong Turn is a very paint-by-numbers horror film that still gets the job done and delivers on violence and visuals without overstaying its welcome and making you feel as though you've wasted your time. It's a perfect movie for the Halloween season when your brain just isn't up to something more cerebral or complex but you still want to watch a fright flick. It's a popcorn movie, is what I'm getting at. So grab a bowl and throw it on some time; you'll have fun. Just make sure you look down each time you grab a handful, or you never know what you'll end up eating...


Wrong Turn
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror

31 by 31 Challenge #3: WILLOW CREEK (2013)

The hunt for Bigfoot is on in this independent, low-budget found footage creature feature from Bobcat Goldthwait and the result...well, it's every bit as expected and strange as you would expect from such a combination.

Willow Creek (2013)
Released: June 6, 2014
Director: Bobcat Goldthwait
Screenplay: Bobcat Goldthwait

Tagline: "Existing Soon"

Cast:
Bryce Johnson as Jim
Alexie Gilmore as Kelly

First Time View?: Yessum

True Bigfoot believer Jim heads out to the Six Rivers National Forest with his longtime girlfriend Kelly in tow to shoot a documentary retracing the steps of the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin footage, which purportedly shows a Sasquatch tromping through the woods and looking back at the camera. Kelly, talented filmmaker and skeptic, agrees to humor Jim and considers the road trip his birthday present. Her real aspirations lie elsewhere in California, namely Hollywood.

They first sojourn in the town of Willow Creek, a small mountain village that has built an industry out of Bigfoot lore and merchandise--bookstores, museums, murals, statues, even restaurants serving Bigfoot burgers. Jim interviews a few locals who tell tales of their strange encounters with the great hairy beast, or who deny his existence altogether, and then they head off into the forest proper to find the forgotten Patterson-Gimlin campsite. Enter Harbinger of Doom character who chases them away. Follow-up with sequence of protagonists hiking into the forest through a secret backtrail, tenting it up for the night and then finding their evening disturbed by strange occurrences, odd sounds, and a threatening presence.

Guys, The Blair Witch Project this ain't. Which is such a shame because there is SO MUCH POTENTIAL for Bigfoot monster movies. Why is this not a larger subgenre of creature features?? I guess because, as this movie shows, it's easy to botch. Now in its defense, not every found footage movie has or should be BWP, but when you tread the same tropes as the ultimate FF king, the comparisons become obvious and inevitable. As such, there's nothing new here beyond typical found footage cliches and rote motions. It's all very horror-movie-paint-by-numbers. Which, I can ration off considering writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait has never really done straight-up horror before (maybe you could argue God Bless America?), so working inside a formula or a checklist could have been a comfort mechanism for him, but there's always room for at least a little bit of spice amidst these kinds of recyclings. 

"Did you hear that?" "Yeah, I think it was the beginning of 'Formation' " 

And I think that's the real crime of Willow Creek: it's boring. We spend so much time following this couple, watching them talk and talk and walk and talk and...sit quietly and listen I guess too? I mean it's a full hour before anything interesting even happens, and when your movie is only 80 minutes long, that's a problem. It makes the build-up seem extraneous, not tense. 

Both actors do a fine job, at least. Kelly is written well and Gilmore plays her very realistically and sympathetically. She's our lens to this strange adventure and the quirky eccentricities of boyfriend Jim, whose obsession with finding the elusive creature in the woods turns him into the "Heather Donahue" character. The character could come off as self-involved and vain with ease, but Johnson redeems him during a midnight proposal scene in the couple's tent that is sweet, honest, and tender. Unfortunately what follows is an 18-minute long take of the couple just being like "I heard something. Did you hear something?" back and forth until the Second Coming. 

The very, very, very final moments of the film show promise and an eye for tension and execution, but it's not enough to save the film proper. I'd be interested to see Goldthwait tackle horror proper. The found footage subgenre can be very tricky, and it's hard to pull off well. Even though Willow Creek tells a familiar story with new faces, the viewer still ends up feeling completely and utterly lost in the woods. And not in a fun way.


Willow Creek
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror