Now, this flick is the absolute epitome of "low budget", meaning its literally low budget, not relatively, where you might here some idenpendent director on the commentary talk about the difficulties of making a flick with only $100,000. You learn from the special features that the actors were not paid, and a viewing of this will tell you right away that the script and FX were done on the cheap, although the cinematography, in my view, was excellent for a film of this nature and not bad even when compared with a film with some budget.
Now, the obvious question you might be asking is, "O.k., so what's it about?"
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Hey, didn't you watch the flick!?!? (You might ask)
Yes, I did, a number of times, as a matter of fact. (I'm fascinated with legitimate efforts to make a movie with no budget or, putting it as charitably as I can, no expertise) As best as I can determine, the story is of a young woman who is looking for answers in the death of her sister, who appears to her from time to time as a demonic figure. This flick is a sequel, and I must admit that I did not see the first one, but to be brutally honest with you, I don't know that that makes a huge difference.
The story is near unintelligable, which would be bad enough but when you couple it with the horrendous sound quality, its impossible to make sense of what you can actually here in addition to what you cannot. The actors are not actors, they are regular Joe's and Janes's who decided to act in this flick. That may sound like a paradox, but just like everyone who does a bad thing isn't necessarily a bad person, not everyone who acts in a movie is an actor.
Once you accept that (and you will no more than 2 minutes into the flick), your only choice in appreciating the acting is realizing that the actors gave their performances on Saturday after processing insurance forms, or whatever they really do, all day Friday.
Throw in the tapioca- pudding- for-vomit, knife under the armpit in the stabbing scene and the slapping scenes where the slapper's hand is visibly more than a foot away from the slapee's face with the sound coming in a full second later, and you have the potential for some laughs in this one.
I must say, even though this one has to go into the "Dud" category on artistic (or lack thereof) alone, the cinematography is not bad, the director of photography obviously knew what he was doing and this flick is shot like a real movie with differing angles and smoth cuts. So, the story doesn't make sense, the direction is poor, the FX amateurish, the sound either annoying or comical, and the acting substandard, who should see this film?
Well, not many, if you want to know the truth. But, if you have a love for (really) small budgt film, or you just want to see what it might look like with you and some of your buddies shooting something on a camcorder, pick this one up. Hey, they (somehow) got distribution, so I think you can find it somewhere if you look for it.
Leave a comment