Directed by Sean Tretta. Starring: Claudia Vargas, Shane Dean, Sharesse Hegna, Noah Todd, Michele Mousel, Kareem McRoy. Horror/Gore Synopsis: A drug addicted woman looks to avenge the death of her sister at the hands of the maker of snuff films and meets up with a group of people who believe they are going to witness a sacrafice of an innocent but who have been lured by a fanatic as bait for his sister, who has turned into a flesh eating mutant by a botched chemical experiment.
Okay, just by reading the somewhat unclear synopsis, you would probably say to yourself, "What the hell?" And, you'd be right, this one is a little far fetched and difficult to talk about intelligently. As a lover of the horror genre and small budget/indie flicks, I will always give flicks that incorporate both (though so much of contemporary horror/gore is by definition small budget) and this one had me at the box cover.
But, I must say, most of you who look at this likely will not like it. Death Factory: Blood Letting is apparently, kind of a sequel but not really, in that it incorporates a character from its forerunner, Death Factory, but is really a totally new story as opposed to a classic sequel. Learned that is the director's commentary and just thought I'd share it in case some of you had seen the original.
Anyway, the plot is very difficult to follow, folks for several reasons. I'll list them for you, not necessarily in order of importance:
1) The plot is very poorly developed and not clearly presented through the dialogue
2) The plot doesn't make sense even in light of the suspension of disbelief we all have going into a horror movie
3) The constant heavy metal music thumping throughout the flick along with the irritating scraping noises in the ambient soundtrack make the film hard to hear, literally and figuratively. (No offense to metal fans, but if that type of music gives you a headache-like me-you seriously might want to give this one a pass for that reason alone)
Without a doubt, the main point of this flick is to get into scenes of gore and blood splattering and that mission is certainly accomplished, but many of us need some form of build up, character depth to some degree, and a logical progression with the context of the film to really enjoy the movie.
None of that is present here, we get stereotypical characters (e.g., the neo-Nazi, the BDSM couple, etc.) who are there for no other reason than to cut sliced and diced; we get some obligatory skin and a brief girl on girl scene, again standard fare for low budget horror. Our protagonists/psychopathic killers are over the top an unexplained to us: the Manson look-a-like and his flesh eating sister with the razor sharp teeth.
But, in this movie everything just feels thrown in, what we really have here is a collection of scenes-some unintelligible-more than a story.
Now, you might think I've been hard on this flick, and I have, but you will notice it is not in the "Dud" category. There is one reason for that. After listening to the director's commentary (frankly, the metal soundtrack I mentioned was so loud and distracting I needed to listen to the commentary to even vaguely follow what was going on in many parts), I realized that this flick was the definition of "low budget". I believe that films are graded on a curve because that's how we enjoy them. You don't pop in Schindler's List when you just what to veg out and have a few laughs and you don't pop in 40 Year Old Virgin when you want something deep and meaningful. By the same token, I don't slam a movie made for almost no money in the same way I would a similar movie made with some financial backing.
Now, most of you who are film buffs and/or have listened to director's commentary know that it is standard for them to talk about limited money or no money, even when they have millions of dollars, such as in Murder Set Pieces, in which a 2 million dollar budget still resulted in a poor film. Also, another pretty good film I reviewed recently, Donkey Punch, has the filmmakers on the commentary talking about the limits of making their movie for "less than a million pounds". So, its all relative.
In this flick, most of the actors were not paid, some had never acted before, and Tretta not only directed the flick but actually was his own DP as he shot the movie himself with one camera. That takes some serious "want to" and I take my hat off to anyone with the drive to do it. Plus, when you compare this to some other films that aren't very good, its not even close to the worst low budget flick you could ever see and, despite my own sensibilities, some might actually like their gore completely gratuitous and soundtrack pulsating heavy metal to drown out the dialogue.
I won't insult your intelligence by telling you its a good film or that I think most will like it. But, grading on the low budget curve, its not a dud. If you see it and think I'm wrong, let me know.
Okay, just by reading the somewhat unclear synopsis, you would probably say to yourself, "What the hell?" And, you'd be right, this one is a little far fetched and difficult to talk about intelligently. As a lover of the horror genre and small budget/indie flicks, I will always give flicks that incorporate both (though so much of contemporary horror/gore is by definition small budget) and this one had me at the box cover.
But, I must say, most of you who look at this likely will not like it. Death Factory: Blood Letting is apparently, kind of a sequel but not really, in that it incorporates a character from its forerunner, Death Factory, but is really a totally new story as opposed to a classic sequel. Learned that is the director's commentary and just thought I'd share it in case some of you had seen the original.
Anyway, the plot is very difficult to follow, folks for several reasons. I'll list them for you, not necessarily in order of importance:
1) The plot is very poorly developed and not clearly presented through the dialogue
2) The plot doesn't make sense even in light of the suspension of disbelief we all have going into a horror movie
3) The constant heavy metal music thumping throughout the flick along with the irritating scraping noises in the ambient soundtrack make the film hard to hear, literally and figuratively. (No offense to metal fans, but if that type of music gives you a headache-like me-you seriously might want to give this one a pass for that reason alone)
Without a doubt, the main point of this flick is to get into scenes of gore and blood splattering and that mission is certainly accomplished, but many of us need some form of build up, character depth to some degree, and a logical progression with the context of the film to really enjoy the movie.
None of that is present here, we get stereotypical characters (e.g., the neo-Nazi, the BDSM couple, etc.) who are there for no other reason than to cut sliced and diced; we get some obligatory skin and a brief girl on girl scene, again standard fare for low budget horror. Our protagonists/psychopathic killers are over the top an unexplained to us: the Manson look-a-like and his flesh eating sister with the razor sharp teeth.
But, in this movie everything just feels thrown in, what we really have here is a collection of scenes-some unintelligible-more than a story.
Now, you might think I've been hard on this flick, and I have, but you will notice it is not in the "Dud" category. There is one reason for that. After listening to the director's commentary (frankly, the metal soundtrack I mentioned was so loud and distracting I needed to listen to the commentary to even vaguely follow what was going on in many parts), I realized that this flick was the definition of "low budget". I believe that films are graded on a curve because that's how we enjoy them. You don't pop in Schindler's List when you just what to veg out and have a few laughs and you don't pop in 40 Year Old Virgin when you want something deep and meaningful. By the same token, I don't slam a movie made for almost no money in the same way I would a similar movie made with some financial backing.
Now, most of you who are film buffs and/or have listened to director's commentary know that it is standard for them to talk about limited money or no money, even when they have millions of dollars, such as in Murder Set Pieces, in which a 2 million dollar budget still resulted in a poor film. Also, another pretty good film I reviewed recently, Donkey Punch, has the filmmakers on the commentary talking about the limits of making their movie for "less than a million pounds". So, its all relative.
In this flick, most of the actors were not paid, some had never acted before, and Tretta not only directed the flick but actually was his own DP as he shot the movie himself with one camera. That takes some serious "want to" and I take my hat off to anyone with the drive to do it. Plus, when you compare this to some other films that aren't very good, its not even close to the worst low budget flick you could ever see and, despite my own sensibilities, some might actually like their gore completely gratuitous and soundtrack pulsating heavy metal to drown out the dialogue.
I won't insult your intelligence by telling you its a good film or that I think most will like it. But, grading on the low budget curve, its not a dud. If you see it and think I'm wrong, let me know.
Leave a comment