Goregoyles: First Cut (Mutant Edition)

Goregoyles: First Cut (Mutant Edition) (2007)
Starring: Mireille Leveque and Marc Vaillancourt ("Beast" segment), Robert Harvick ("The Holy Terror" segment), and Eric Therrien (Host segments)
Directors: Alexandre Michaud and Augustine Arredondo
Ratings: Six of Ten Stars

I've sung the praises of the anthology fillm format in the past. However, Canadian director Alexandre Michaud recently demonstrated a feature of the anthology that I hadn't considered: If part of the "film" sucks, you can replace it with something else while leaving what worked intact.

And that brings us to "Goregoyles: First Cut (Mutant Edition). This curiously titled DVD, which was first released by Brain Damage Films in 2007, is a revised version of Michaud's 2003 "Goregoyles: First Cut" anthology film.

The only real complaint I had about the original "Goregoyles: First Cut" was the segment titled "Bezerker", a weak attempt at a zombie movie that stuck out like a sore thumb in an otherwise decent package. Given that "Bezerker' is nowhere to seen in the forthcoming "Mutant Edition", I assume that I wasn't the only reviewer who had unkind things to say about it. And it's absence is greatly appreciated, as it smooths out the film, resulting in a even level of quality across all segments.

(Although I need to stop thinking of the elements of a "Goregoyles" package as "segments". They are actually distinct short films, each directed by a different independent horror filmmaker and surrounded by "host segments" featuring a severely perverted and violent male Elvira-type character. Producer/Writer Michaud has stated that the "Goregoyles" series was conceived along the lines of the big-budget extravaganza "Grindhouse", in so far as each installment is a "double-feature" of short films. Not only did Michaud come up with the idea before Tarantino, but he's managed it better... he's offering cheapie horror movies that were made with budgets appropriate to cheapie horror movies... and if Tarantino, Rodriguez, and the Weinstein Company had kept the budget in line with the sort of movies they were presenting, maybe they wouldn't have had a financial disaster on their hands. I digress, but the "Goregoyles" series is, in some ways, what "Grindhouse" aspired to be.)

As with the other two "Goregoyles" reviews I've written, I'm going to review and rate each element of this film seprately, which will lead to an overall evaluation and rating. (Given that this is a revision of the original "Goregoyles: First Cut", I am considering the new material presented in comparison to what it replaced, as well as on its own merits.)

First up, we have the "host segments". In the original "First Cut", each film was introduced by a whacked out character named Uncle Dodo (played by Sebastien Croteau) who came across like a counter-culture, death-rocker take on Cain from the old "House of Mystery" comics. In the "Mutant Edition", the films are introduced by Uncle Vicious, a monstrous, sadistic, murdering rapist who doesn't show any of the wit or charm of the Dodo character. The gory violence he visits upon a tied-up, naked woman in the host segments (including raping her to death with a nail-studded dildo; an act that happens off-camera but which forms for the foundation for "Farewell from Uncle Vicious") was something I found quite off-putting. I understand, however, that this type of material is quite popular with the target market, and I also realize that the fact that I've been stabbed and cut, and have suffered broken bones and crushed fingers might make me more prone to react negatively to detailed torture scenes and other displays of physical pain on film. When these factors are taken into account, I can stand back and say that the host segments are decently presented, Therrien presents an appropriately insane character, and they do the job they're supposed to do nicely. I didn't find them as informative, intresting, or amusing as the host segments in the original version of the film, but they still earn a (low) Six of Ten Star-rating.

The replacement for "Bezerker", as mentioned above, is "Beast" by Alexandre Michaud. According to Helltimate Studio's website, "Beast" was originally produced for a werewolf anthology film, which I imagine ended up never happening, as the film is being presented here. (It was also made some five years ago, according to the copyright date on the end credits.)

"Beast" is part slasher-film and part psychological horror film. It's the story of a woman (Leveque) whose life goes from bad to worse when her mentally unstable brother (Vaillancourt) murders her husband and then abducts her so she can stop him from turning into a werewolf. Although somewhat clumsily written, the film is saved by some excellent acting on the part of Leveque and Dubreuil, and a last minute twist that may cast a different light on the opening murder. Director/writer Michaud is also to be congratulated for finding a way to incorporate the basics of a werewolf story into an ultra-low budget film and avoid transformation and make-up effects that leave entirely too many films of this level looking amatuerish and laughable. Even five years ago, Michaud understood how to work within his means. "Beast" gets a rating of Six of Ten Stars.

Finally, we have "The Holy Terror", the story of a man (Harvick) who becomes possessed by a demon who once gave Satan himself a run for his money. I raved about this short film in my review of the original "Goregoyles: First Cut", and my opnion remains mostly the same. I noticed some problems with the sound that didn't register last time--such as dialogue that's a bit hard to hear due to ambient sound in the scene--but I still think this film is a must-see for aspiring filmmakers. It's amazing what director Augustine Arredondo accomplished for a reported $800... and it's a shame that he apparently hasn't done anything else since.

In the final analysis, "Goregoyles: First Cut ("Mutant Edition") is two steps forward and one step back. Replacing "Bezerker" with "Beast" greatly improved the overall quality of the offering by removing a trashy little flick that wasn't worthy of the material it was surrounded with. On the other hand, the host segments lack the charm of the ones featured in the original... although I suppose they may appeal more strongly to gorehounds and fans of the "torture films" that seem to be in vogue these days. (I'm also slightly dissapointed by the absense of the "making-of docmentary for "Holy Terror", but an interesting interview with Michaud and the stars of "Beast" almost makes up for that... and those DVD extras aren't part of the film anyway.)

It earns a solid Six of Ten Stars and my recommendation to those who appreciate well-crafted low-budget movies.

'Goregoyles: First Cut' is a nice package

Goregoyles: First Cut (2003)
Starring: Robert Harvick, Sebastian Croteau, and Matt Busch
Directors: Augustine Arredondo, Kevin J. Lindenmuth, and Alexandre Michaud
Rating: Six of Ten Stars (for the film)/Seven of Ten Stars (for the overall DVD package)

This was a hard one for me to rate, not only because it's an anthology film of wildly varying quality, but also because the entirety of the DVD package is something I feel needs to be taken into account in the review. This is rare for me, as Most of the time, the "bonus features" on DVDs are fairly dull or just recycled/archived marketing materials. With the "Goregoyles: First Cut" DVD, however, most of the extras are interesting and well-worth being considered "bonuses.")

First, the movie. I'll rate each part of it seperately, and then give an overall rating for the film alone. "Goregoyles: First Cut" is the first in a series of films that will feature several short horror shorts, framed by introductory comments from Uncle Dodo (Croteau).

The Uncle Dodo sequences are both amusing and informative--the long-haired host is a combination of Joe Bob Briggs and the Cryptkeeper--something which isn't true of other low-budget anthology films I've come across. I suppose I should admit with some degree of shame that the Uncle Dodo set bears a disturbing resemblence to my office. (Okay, there's no blow-up doll in the corner, but the rest is strangely similar....) By themselves, I rate the Dodo sequences at Six of Ten Stars.

Then there's the first of the two short films, "The Holy Terror." This is the story of a man (Harvick) who gets possessed by a demon and then finds himself pursued by occultists and assassins for the Catholic Church.

"The Holy Terror" should be required viewing for anyone who makes or is contemplating making a horror film on a limited budget. Reportedly made for around $800, this short film is better crafted than some horror flicks with ten times its budget. It features good acting, nice camera work, a well-done and well-used music soundtrack, and is nicely structured and paced. The producer/director, Augustine Arredondo, also seems to have had a realistic sense of what he was able to accomplish--he limited his special effects to movie gore and didn't make any attempts putting monsters, physical transformations, or anything else that required lots of money to pull off on the screen--and he didn't attempt to pad his film to the 70 minutes minimum for a feature. Most low-budget horror movies are ruined not so much by crappy acting, but by padding and filmmakers attempting things their budget and resources simply don't allow for, and Arrendondo avoided both those pitfalls. Even better, he clearly understands that if your effects are cheaply made, you don't want to feature them in long, loving shots so the audience has a chance to roll their eyes and snicker at you. It seems like something that should be easy to understand, but given the number of filmmakers who don't do this, it must be a hard concept to grasp.

"Holy Terror" was Arredondo's first outing as a director, and so far his only one. This is a shame, because while it's not a perfect film--it could have done with a few more minutes of running time and story to fill in a couple of niggling plot issues, and a stronger ending would have been nice--it is still good enough to earn a rating of Eight of Ten Stars. It's a shame he didn't stick with directing.

The second film that Uncle Dodo presents is titled "Bezerker". Almost everything that "The Holy Terror" got right, this one got wrong... despite the fact that this one is supposedly the product of a "legend" of low-budget filmmaking, Kevin J. Lindenmuth, while the first film was the product of a newcomer.

"Bezerker" is a short zombie movie with a storyline so muddled it trips over itself, despite being thinner than a supermodel on a hunger strike. Basically, it's Viking zombies show up and kill people. To make matters worse, it has a cast of actors who range from bad to awful, and some of the worst zombie costumes put on the screen.

(Free tip to filmmakers: If you have a zombie who is rotted and decayed from wandering the woods for a decade, don't put it in a clean, bright white, freshly washed night gown. Similarly, rotting walking corpses shouldn't all be wearing black sweatshirts that look brand new, particularly not when some of them supposedly are 1,000 year-old zombie Vikings. Thank you. You're welcome to acknowledge me in the credits of your next film.)

Given that Uncle Dodo's description of "Bezerker" both in the intro and the lead-out make it sound interesting than it it, and seem more like a description of what SHOULD have been on the screen instead of what is, it sounds like the producers of the "First Cut" anthology were as bored with this worthless piece of trash as I was. There are two good scenes in it, one of which is almost ruined by terrible child actors, and the other undermined by an ineptly done gore effect--although the zombie eating himself while walking around still made me squirm and will stick with me for some time. This one gets Two of Ten Stars.

Overall, I give "Goregoyles: First Cut" a rating of Six of Tomatoes of Ten, skewing the rating a bit high, because as awful as "Bezerker" is, it's thankfully short.

The final thing I touch on here are the extras that are included on the DVD. Like I mentioned above, I don't usually take those into account when reviewing a film, but I make an exception here.

First off, the interview with "Goregoyles" producer Alexandre Michaud is interesting, insightful, and far more honest than the self-congratulatory marketing crap we usually get in these sorts of offerings. He talks about the origins and intent of the "Goregoyles" series, and even touches upon some shortcomings. Similarly, the "making of" documentary about "The Holy Terror" also features some very candid interviews with its star and director that provide an interesting look into "no-budget" filmmaking, and it's a real look at the production process, not just an extended ad that originally appeared on HBO.

Among the extras is also a "bloopers" section that doesn't actually contain bloopers but instead feature longer versions of Uncle Dodo's commentary. I liked these longer riffs better than what appeared in the film, although I also agree with the choice of shortening them; the films shouldn't be secondary to the host.

Finally, the disk contains previews for numerous movies in the Brain Damage Films catalogue. I'm impressed with the way they can make movies I know to be completely and utter turds (because I've had the misfortune of seeing them) look like they may actually be interesting. It's a nice look at what this distribution company offers--even if some of the previews are better than the films they are made to advertise!

When I add the high-quality extras on the "Goregoyles: First Cut" DVD into my considerations, the overall package gets an extra Star, bringing the rating up to Seven of Ten Tomatoes. I applaud Brain Damage Films for producing a DVD package where the "bonus" material is worth watching, and I encourage lovers of horror films to track this one down for "The Holy Terror" at the very least.

Note: "The Holy Terror" is also included in the Catacombs of Creepshow 50 movie pack. That might be a better way to get your hands on it, as you'll be getting a slew of other indie horror flicks... some good, some pretty awful. But the price is good.

'Divine Intervention' is a well-done first outing

Divine Intervention (2007)
Starring: Ingrid Fenn, Alyssa Jayne Hale, Kyle Erha,Patrick Pitu, Vic Clay, Kevin Cirone, Salvatore Marchese, Jonathan La Mantia
Director: Rufus Chaffee
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Holly (Fenn) and Sarah (Hale) travel to a small town for a night of partying, but they soon find themselves in the caught up in a struggle of nerves between the town bad-boy (Erha) and a third-rate thug (Cirone). Things go from bad to worse when a crazed meth-head (Clay) goes on a murder-spree motivated by a theology based on the Bible and lessons learned from the reality TV show "Survivor", and a belief he is harvesting souls for the Army of God.

"Divine Intervention" is a low-budget thriller that occupies a space somewhere between "Scream" and any one of a dozen exploitation flicks from 1960s and 1970s where innocent young people find themselves menaced by evil and crazed druggies in the isolated countryside. For most of its running time, it's a better film than both contemporary and old-time examples of this type of movie, because it moves forward at a steady pace, is free of padding--there is not a single scene of characters wandering through the woods or driving aimlessly down the road--and features actors who are familiar enough with their craft and their lines to actually portray characters instead of just run lines and keep to their blocking.

Another aspect that sets this film apart from others like it is the professionalism with which it has been produced. Real money was spent on cameras, lights, and sound equipment-no camcorder microphones here, nor any badly done day-for-night shots. The film has also clearly been carefully editing and taken through the entire post-production process, aspects many low-budget filmmakers don't pay anywhere near enough attention to. (There are still a couple of rough spots here and there--like ambient noise changing between a close-up and an over-the-shoulder shot during an conversation between two characters, and an obvious lack of discharge from a gun that gets fired into the camera--but these flaws can be found in movies made with ten times the financial and technical resources that Chaffee and crew had at their disposal, so they are not at all damning. Particularly not when one considers the state of post-production on most other low-budget films.)

"Divine Intervention" is also blessed with a superb casting. The lead actors are all decent, and the Beautiful People look of the majority of the cast makes the ragged meth-head look of Vic Clay's "Father Reynolds" character that much stronger. (In fact, Clay has a number of great moments in the film, moments which would have fallen flat if he had been a lesser actor. Look in particularly for the scene where he is trying to impart one of his Bible/"Survivor"-based lessons to his brain-fried homicidal minion.)

The film's dialogue is also well-crafted for most of its running-time. A number of characters have unique voices, something that screen-writers achieve all too rarely. In fact, the whole idea of incorporating "Survivor" into the fabric of Father Reynolds' psychosis was a great idea, as it lends both humor and creepiness to the character... and it's references that virtually everyone seeing the movie will understand and laugh at. I know this, because I've never seen a complete episode of "Survivor", I can't think of a single friend who was a fan of the show, yet "Survivor" was a large enough part of pop culture for a while there that I picked up enough about it to understand every reference that Father Reynolds' makes.

Unfortunately, for all the good things about "Divine Intervention", the film starts to fall apart as it enters its third act. Characters start behaving illogically and downright stupidly for the purpose of nonsensical melodrama, there are some VERY lame fight scenes, and the quality of the acting and the dialogue also seems to deteriorate a bit. It also doesn't help the ending that there are a couple of useless characters that bog it down--the slutty mother of another minor character and the obligatory tough-talking black guy. (The presence of the slutty mother makes no sense at all, other than perhaps Chaffee felt that every "sinner" had to be disposed of in the film. He would have been better off leaving her out of the climax, though, particularly since the way we never see her face toward the end makes me think the actress who played her earlier in the film wasn't even present.)

I think with one more draft of the script before filming started--to get rid of some of the useless characters and subplots, and to tighten up the film's ending to a large degree--Rufus Chafee could have had himself a fantastic first outing as a feature film director. Instead, because of the way the film falls apart in the third act, he's ended up withing something that's at the low end of average.

I hope that Chaffee tries his hand at another feature. Based on the high level of quality here, I suspect he's a creator who learns from his mistakes, and I think a second movie will be much, much better.

I hardly ever say this, but I think Rufus Chaffee is a talent to watch for in the future.

'Johnny Sunshine' is full of violent sex

Johnny Sunshine: Maximum Violence (2008)
Starring: Shey Bland, Eric Halsell, John Patrick McCauley and Josh Winkerbean
Director: Matt Yaeger
Rating: Four of Ten

In a dark future world overrun with zombies, Johnny Sunshine (Bland) is the hottest star in the snuff porn/zombie porn business. the film followers her through a couple of typical blood-soaked, drug-addled workdays while the producer and distributor of her films, Max (Halsell), plots to sell her boyd and soul to a corrupt cop named Stein (McCauley) so he can secure his entry into a walled city as a full citizen.


"Johnny Sunshine" is a film that mixes the cyberpunk and zombie movie genres quite effectively. It's a natural mix, as heartless societies are the mainstay of both (at least in the "after the fall" mode). It's a film that I sat down to watch, expecting to love, despite its obvious low budget.

But, then the torture porn started. I'm not talking "torture porn' in the "Saw" sense here... I mean literal torture porn. Long sequences of it. Sequences where our "heroine" rips a man's tongue out with a pair of pliers while having sex with him, and another where she rapes a young woman to death with a crowbar.

It was horrible stuff, and it was beyond my tolerance limit. I'm already a little squeamish when it comes to movie violence, but throw in sex at the same time and you've made a movie that isn't for me.

The on-screen snuff porn aspect aside, there's an interesting storyline unfolding in the film that details the complete and total corruption of society, and it presents a healthy dose of George Romero-esque social satire on the whole reality TV movement that's been taking every media segment by storm. The story would have been a little stronger if there had been something likable about Johnny, but it's hard to care about the fate of a character after you've watched her rape a girl to death with a crowbar. The ending is in keeping with the tone of the film and Johnny's personality and it actually made me revise my overall opinion of the film upward. it's actually one of those rare perfect endings and it shows that screenwriter Sean-Michael Argo has a keen sense of story (crowbar-rape scenes aside).

The acting in the film is a better than average for what is usually found in this kind of movie made with this kind of budget and Shey Bland is an attractive and charismatic actress (which gives the Johnny Sunshine character more appeal that she might otherwise have had given the repulsive things she does). The make-up effects and fight scenes are average, which means they fight choreography leaves something to be desired and more than once it's obvious that blows don't connect due either to bad camera placement or actors not hitting their marks properly.

If you can stomach the repulsive sexual violence in this film, it is actually a nice little hybrid genre picture. It makes me wonder what director Matt Yaeger and writer Argo might come up with if they do a second movie. I see talent here, and I'm interested in seeing how it develops with experience. I likewise hope to see Shey Bland again in the future--this is her first and, so far, only film credit--as she appears to be an interesting and talented actress.

'Prey for the Beast' is not worth digesting

Prey for the Beast (2008)
Starring: Ray Besharah, Lisa Aitken, Mark Courneyea, Brett Kelly, Anastasia Kimmett, Amanda Leigh, Sonia Myers, Jodi Pittman, and Lenard Blackburn
Director: Brett Kelly
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Visitors to a remote corner of Canada's grand wilderness are stalked and killed by a cunning monster with mysterious powers. Two groups of campers--one consisting of all-male Beautiful People and one all-female Beautiful People--join forces in order to survive.

"Prey for the Beast" features a great creature. I often knock low-buget horror films like this because they include monsters that look cheap and goofy instead of impressive and scary.That's not the case here. The monster in this film is very made, its attacks are convincing, and it holds up nicely to the extended shots that its featured in. It's a rareity among films at this production level, and I congratulate Kelly and his special effects team of Ralph Gethings (who did the gore effects and make-up) and Matt Ficner (who built the monster suit) for excelling in this area.


The script for the film is also pretty decent. Its characters are a bit on the generic side for the most part, but its got some nice concepts and a climax is well-paced. It also gives the creature a suite of unexpected powers, such as the ability to animate the corpses of victims it doesn't fully consume and a venom that causes paranoia and hallucinations in those who survive its attack. One is also left with the impression that the creature has the ability to teleport itself from place to place and turn invisible at will, but I don't think that was intended by the filmmakers. Rather, I think the creature's amazing ability to stand unseen directly behind its intended victims is a reflection of the Ed Wood Problem as it is manifested in "Prey for the Beast".

"The Ed Wood Problem", so named because it was an ever-present elements in the movies and written by Edward D. Wood Jr., is what occurs when the script calls for a certain kind of location, the actors behave and deliver their line as if they're in that location, but even the most unobservant viewer can recognize that what's on the screen and what the actors are describing or reacting to are two different things. In an Ed Wood picture, this problem would typically manifest itself through characters commenting on how fancy or opulent a room was while standing on a set that made a flophouse look luxurious.

In "Prey for the Beast", the Ed Wood Problem has a script that calls for a wilderness far removed from civilization, a deep, dark forest that is hard to access and in which human feet rarely tread. What we have seems more like a place that's no more than 100 yards from the visitor's center of a national forest or large city park. (The Problem starts maniesting early in the fllm with the film's mail title credits running over stock footage of a mountainous forest and wild giver, intercut cut with four of our soon-to-be-beast-prey charaters pulling across a placid lake in a rowboat; by none of the characters possessing any camping gear worth noting; and by the survivors of the beast attack reaching a road, a shack, and ultimately a picnic area, within no more than half a day's worth of hiking.)

The setting for the film doesn't feel as remote and isolated as it needs to, and this is a major strike against any real suspense and terror being generated as the film unfolds. It also leads to seeral eye-rolling moments of unintentional hilarity when the monster is lurking a mere two-three feet away from its victims, yet they do not see it. This is because the action is supposedly taking place in thick, old-growth forest and not among the thin forest the actors are actually performing in. It keeps the viewer from taking the film seriously and it keeps the film from having any real impact, despite the effective creature design and well-done gore effects.

Actiing that is more suited for stage than film on the part of most of the cast, and illogical behavior on the part of several characters (because if they didn't do something stupid, the monster wouldn't have a chance to kill them) also serves as a drag on the overall level of enjoyment derived from watching the film. The only castmembers who didn't have me cringing at some of their line-readings was director Brett Kelly, Anastasia Kimmet, and Lisa Aitken.

If you're a fan of low-budget monster movies, "Prey for the Beast" is worth checking out for its well-done monster. The rest of the movie is fairly mediocre. There are a couple of jolts here and there, but even at its scant running of just over an hour it feels over-long and there are more than point where you'll wish for the pace to picked up a bit.

'Fungicide': Great intentionally bad movie

Fungicide (2005)
Starring: Dave Bonavita, Wes Miller, Dave Wascavage, Mary Wascavage, and David Weldon
Director: Dave Wascavage
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When Silas Purcell (Weldon), a dorky mad scientist who still lives in his parents' basement, takes his latest project with him on vacation, the audience-expected accident happens, and soon the residents at a budget bed-and-breakfast place are fighting for their lives against a hoard of giant killer mushrooms!


It's not often that a movie described as "so bad its good" actually is so bad it's good, but that is the case with "Fungicide". It's an absolutely horrrible movie that looks like it was shot with a camcorder over a weekend, is performed by amateur actors (who, literally, are the director's family and friends, as well as the director himself), and features "manshrooms" and killer mushroom puppets that are only exceeded in their laughable-ness by the computer graphics effects.

However, the badness, coupled with the unadulturated glee displayed by the cast as they fight badly drawn CGI mushrooms and guys in dressed up in badly done mushroom costumes that shoot silly string at them as a defense, make this a movie that I watched with increasing glee and ausement myself.

Wascavage and his actors brought an energy to this film that is all-too-rarely seen in low-budget pictures. None of the actors had that lethargic quality that is so common among those who are working in front of a camera for the first time, and, while they had plenty of the "Look... I'm ACTING!" quality that is equally common in performers at this level, it is something that complemeented and enhanced the awful special effects and cheezy monster costumes. Wascavage and Friends clearly understood they weren't making the next big monster movie, and they are clearly having fun making the best movie within their reach, and making it intentionally goofy as they go.

The comedy, intentional goofiness, and the sense that the actors and director KNOW they are making a bad movie all combine to give the film its infectious enegy. It also helps that the script has some hilarious moments in it (the dream sequence with Silas spending a happy life with this killer mushroom "children" is truly one of the funniest bits I've seen in a amateurish production like this, ever. The handpuppet mushroom is so goofy that it in-and-of-itself is one of the niftiest and craziest things about this film.

And, to top it off, as silly as this movie is, the final showdown with the killer mushrooms actually managed to be a little scary, partly because I found that I had some invested in the very silly characters that are the films heroes--a reality TV star Major Wang (Miller), a retired pro-wrestler who is secretly suffering from a deadly yet potentially tragi-comic malady (Bonavita), an obnoxious realtor (Dave Wascavage), and the happy hippy who runs the B&B (Mary Wascavage)--and partly because David Weldon does such a fabulous job as Silas the Mad Scientist.

'Caregiver' is surprisingly good thriller

Caregiver (2007)
Starring: Osa Wallander, Rebeka Montoya, Elisa Eliot, Paula Thomas, Carla Valentine, and Rich Ward
Director: Dennis Devine
Steve's Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Sexually abused as a child and hiding from a physically abusive husband, Paige (Wallander) sets out to get a fresh start in life while helping others who have hard lives. She goes to work as a counciler at a halfway house for girls intending to change the girls' lives by showing them kindness. However, the girls--ranging from abuse victims to hardened juveline delinquents to throw Paige's kindness back in her face and the mental strain causes her to crack. With a background darker and more twisted than any of the inmates in the halfway house, and a tendency to violence that makes the girls look like the children they are, Paige quickly becomes a threat to anyone who crosses her.


"Caregiver" a moody, realistic, well-acted psychological thriller, and it's easy to see why it won Best Picture at the "Phoenix Fear Film Festival" in December of 2006. Osa Wallander is particularly impressives as Paige, a troubled woman who wants to be a positive influence in the world but who is just too mentally disturbed herself to quite manage to be one. Wallander's ability to switch from sugar-sweet to psycho-bitch in a heartbeat is one of the best things about this movie.

Aside from the strong performances by all the film's lead actresses, "Caregiver" benefits from a strong scrpt that has a ring of truth to it. A relative of mine worked for a number of years in a facility exactly like the one in the movie--the layout even resembled it--and the behavior of the girls, staff, and management in "Caregiver" reminded me very much of the stories she used to tell. This sense of realism gives the film a grounding that few chillers manage these days... and it makes me wish that more filmmakers would take such care witih their scripts.

The film further benefits from a subtle, unobtrusive directing and filming style. There are no "look at me showing off my film degree" flourishes in the film. The camera is simply there to pass along the story to us. It's an approach that brings even more realism to the film.

The film is not without its flaws, though... and while many of the strengths of the film arise from the script, so does its weaknesses.

First off, the pre-title murder sequence is rather tepid and it had me fearing for what was to follow--it's the one bit of the movie where i felt the acting left a lot to be desired.

Second, there's a rather stylish and creepy scene where one of the characters commits suicide. While this is a nice set-piece that had me squirming a bit, it might have had more impact if we'd actually known more the character beforehand. It's also something that doesn't seem to be connected with anything else that happens in the film, except a bewildering "haunting" that happens around the halfway mark. That whole element (because it's not even really a subplot) of the film feels out of place and as if it's something that remains from an earlier draft of the script that no one wanted to get rid of. (The girl refusing to wear a shirt was a great establishing bit for the way these halfway houses are, but the other bits of business involving the character distract more than they add to the overall flow of the movie.)

Still, this is a well-done, worthwhile psychological thriller that works because it is populated by realistic characters who exist within a perfectly believable world. Sure, there are some things I could nitpick, but, overall, the film sets a reality and maintains it. This is itself quite a feat for moviemakers, as the last few horror movies I've seen that involved social workers or institutions (like "See No Evil" and "Asylum of the Damned") were both so incompetently written that anyone who's ever so much as read a newspaper would be unable to suspend their disbelief. (The strong sense of realism in the film also makes the one murder that doesn't occur in flashback startling and impactful.)

Evil Clown knocks them dead in 'Torment'

Torment (2008)
Starring: Suzi Lorraine, Tom Steadman, Ted Alderman and Lucien Eisenach
Director: Steve Sessions
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A young woman (Lorraine) is released from a mental hospital into the care of her alcoholic husband. The two go to an isolated house so she can continue her recovery and they can renew their relationship in a quiet environment. Unfortunately for them, a psycho in a clown costume (Eisenach) is capturing and torturing people in the area.


This movie was hard for me to assign a rating to. While there is much about it that I like, there is much I don't like. It's one of the better psycho clown movies I've seen, but it's got some serious flaws.

Suzi Lorraine gives an interesting performance as Lauren, a former mental patient who spots a psychotic killer as he picks out his next victim, but who is disbelieved due to her history of mental illness. The way the script sets up the chain of events that leads Lauren into the worst possible danger is well executed and her confrontation with the Killer Clown (called Dissecto in the credits but unnamed in the film istself) is very suspenseful. Unfortunately, these strong parts of the movie are undermined and outweighed by the weak parts.

"Torment" feels like its two halfbaked scripts that have been combined into one film. They weren't necessarily BAD scripts... they're just unpolished and they work against each other and ultimately end up undermining what suspense and tension they could have produced if they had been two different movies.

The clunky dialogue at times made up for by some well done lines, and the few overlong and even redundant scenes in the film are likewise counterbalanced by some truly creepy, scary and startling moments. (For example, the repeatative expository scenes and dialogue of the fact that Lauren is fresh out of mental hospital are annoying, but they are more than made up for the scene where Dissecto invades her home, or when she is hiding in his.) As far as this goes, the good counterbalances the bad.

However, the way the film makes it crystal clear from the outset that Lauren isn't hallucinating the spooky clown lurking in the bushes-- the extended scenes of him torturing a pair of missing Mormon missionaries is most definately not something she's imagining--and so there is no real tension produced by the "is she crazy or isn't she" question... although it does make her husband come across like a grade-A asshole. If you're into "torture porn", I suppose you might enjoy those aforementioned scenese of Dissecto performing for and upon his victimes, but I'm too squeamish for that sort of thing--having recently experienced my own encounter with excruciating pain has made that sort of material hard for me to watch--but the sloppy costuming of the "Mormons" can't be anything but a strike against the movie. (It's bad enough one of the "Mormons" had a shaved head, but none of their missionaries would EVER sport a soul patch/jazz dot!)

Bad costuming (and the sloppy direction that allows it to happen aside) it's the absolute certainty the audience has of Dissecto's existence that undermines Lauren's story. It makes us dislike her husband to a disproportionate degree and it makes everything leading up to her encounter with Dissecto feel like it goes on and on, because we know the real action won't start until he dispatches the husband and starts stalking her.


And that's too bad. Suzi Lorraine gives an good performance, but my impatience with wanting the movie to get to where the real action was made it hard to notice. Tom Steadman likewise gave a decent accounting of himself as Lauren's moronic husband... and I think that if he had been given better dialogue to deliver, he might have been even better. (To a large extent, he's The Amazing Redundant Exposition Man, and this reduces his role to something less that what it could have been.)

"Torment" is a movie that has a lot to recommend to fans of thrillers, slasher movies, and "torture porn". Unfortuantely, the thriller elements and "torture porn" elements are at odds with each other and between them they almost manage to make the slasher element moot and make the ending seem false and forced because it doesn't feel like a natural outgrowth of anything. These, plus the stilted and clumsy nature of some of the dialogue and the excessive exposition in certain scenes drag this down to a low end of average, despite its strong points. (Speaking of excessive exposition... one thing the film never even hints at is the Who and the Why of Dissecto. Part of me would like to know more about him, but another part of me likes the "senseless evil" aspect this presents. I think the fact I'm torn is another sign that the script needed more work.)

Despite its flaws, though, "Torment" is worth checking out if you're into killer clowns, or if you enjoy small-scale horror films.